# 


AN  APPEAL 


TO  THE 


AMEEICAN  BOAED  C.  F.  MISSIONS, 


FROM  THE 


UNJUST  AND  OPPRESSIVE  MEASURES  OF  THE  SECRETA- 
RIES AND  PRUDENTIAL  COMMITTEE. 


By  Rev.  J.  D.  PAXTON,  D.D. 


NEW  HAVEN: 

K  i  >■  T  E  D     U  V     J  .     H  .    U  K  .\  U  A  M  . 


1848. 


AN  APPEAL  TO  THE  A.  B.  C.  F.  M., 


From  the  unjust  and  oppressive  measures  of  the  Secreta- 
ries and  Prudential  Committee  ;  for  tolerating  a  system  of 
espionage  and  underhand  dealings  in  their  missionaries ; 
for  assigning  reasons  for  withholding  appointments  which 
are  not  the  true  ones,  and  so  treating  the  matter  as  to  assail 
character  ;  for  either  themselves  or  through  persons  admitted 
to  the  Rooms,  putting  out  defamatory  statements,  which 
documents  in  the  Rooms  show  are  false  ;  for  refusing  to  cor- 
rect those  published  slanders  when  called  on  both  in  public 
and  private  ;  for  refusing  to  give  access  to,  or  extracts  from 
documents  known  to  be  in  the  Rooms,  and  which  would  cor- 
rect the  calumnies;  and  for  refusing  to  give  the  names  of 
those  members  of  the  Prudential  Committee  to  whom  an 
appeal  was  said  to  be  read,  July  20th,  1847,  and  who  are 
said  to  have,  refused  to  consider  it,  as  the  following  state- 
ments will  show. 


PREFACE. 


Had  I  regard  only  to  my  own  case,  the  following  publication  would 
not  appear.  There  are  greater  interests  concerned  than  that  of  any 
individual.  The  course  pursued  by  the  executive  of  the  A.  B. 
C.  F.  M.,  and  some  of  their  missionaries,  unless  corrected,  must  be- 
fore long  greatly  injure  the  Board,  and  do  not  a  little  discredit  to  Pro- 
testant missions.  My  opposition  to  the  sapping  and  mining  policy, 
and  making  it  more  known  to  the  churches  ;  the  underhand  measures 
used  to  send  mc  from  the  mission  field — the  assaults  made  on  my 
character,  together  with  the  combined  effort  of  the  Secretaries,  W. 
W.  and  Mr.  Smith,  endorsed  by  the  Committee,  to  make  out  that  my 
statements  respecting  policy,  were  not  true — their  refusing  to  give  in- 
formation and  withholding  papers — all,  all  are  but  a  small  part  of 
the  facts  which  show  unfair  dealings  towards  those  who  dare  hon- 
estly to  think  for  themselves,  and  oppose  plans  and  doings  which  they 
believe  to  be  wrong.    Such  things  ought  not  to  be. 

There  are  cases  covered  over,  which  if  known  in  their  details, 
would  not  a  little  surprise  the  patrons  of  the  Board.  We  cannot  give 
names  without  compromising  persons  who  are  not  willing  to  be  ex- 
posed to  the  assaults  to  which  others  have  been  subjected,  for  stating 
what  they  knew  was  true  in  the  premises.  Some  who  know  the 
state' of  things,  believe  that  I  ought  to  make  a  statement  to  the  public, 
that  the  churches  may  understand  how  their  agents  act. 

Some,  no  doubt,  will  be  unwilling  to  believe  that  the  Secretaries 
act  thus,  and  feel  disposed  to  place  implicit  credit  in  their  denials,  or 
deceptive  explanations,  and  possibly  refuse  to  look  into  the  case. 
We  beg  leave  to  remind  such  that  the  greatest  oppressors  and  de- 
ceivers that  the  world  ever  knew,  could  put  a  plausible  face  on  their 
conduct,  and  always,  as  long  as  they  remained  in  power,  find  some 
who  would  take  their  part.  We  respectfully  ask  such  to  examine  the 
facts  which  we  will  adduce — look  at  the  papers,  read  the  documents 
which  we  will  specify — call  for  witnesses,  and  put  the  Secretaries 
and  Committee  to  solemn  afbrmation  as  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  "the 
truth,  the  whoh;  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,"  and  see  M'hat  the 
result  will  be.  Men  who  have  all  the  jiower  in  their  hands,  and  the 
keeping  of  nil  Ihc  donimnils ;  i-eporting  to  thofec  who  employ  them 
only  wh(i1  Ihci/  plcasf ;  if  they  are  unwilling  to  make  solemn  affirma- 
tion as  to  the  truth  of  the  case,  have  no  right  to  hold  the  place,  and 
ought,  however  unwilling,  to  be  deprived  of  such  irresponsible  power. 
I  will  allud(!  here  to  one  fiict. 

Before  I  left  Palestine,  a  resolution  had  been  taken  to  write  the 
history  of  the  Syrian  Mission.  The  work  was  parcelled  out  and  a 
beginning  made.  It  is  the  oldest  mission  to  the  Oriental  Churches, 
and  more  has  been  written  about  it  than  any  other.  That  mission  at 
first  followed  th(!  open  aggressive  plan,  up  to  the  time  Dr.  Anderson 
visited  the  Mediterranean,  in  Ib'iSi,  and  had  the  Mediterranean  Mis- 


4 


sion  Church  organized,  and  what  was  afterwards  called  the  sapping 
and  mining  plan,  adopted.  That  plan  and  policy  were  then  followed 
up  to  1838  or  1840,  when  there  was  a  gradual  return  to  the  open  ag- 
gressive plan.  I  doubt  not  that  the  history  ot"  the  tirst  period,  up  to 
1830,  or  thereabout,  has  been  finished,  and  most  likely  a  copy  of  it 
sent  to  the  Rooms ;  the  same,  I  think,  may  be  the  case  with  the  part 
up  to  1838,  or  1840  ;  how  it  may  be  with  the  period  since  that,  I 
have  no  means  of  knowing.  Now  I  would  like  much  to  know,  and 
the  Board  ought  to  know,  Avhat  account  this  mission  history  gives  of 
these  changes  of  mission  policy,  through  which  this  mission  has 
passed.  Is  there  a  fair  and  trutiiful  account  given  ?  or  is  all  covered 
over,  and  a  jnoiis  fi-aud  prepared  for  the  Churches.  Several  histo- 
ries of  missions  have  been  given,  and  some  of  the  writers  have  had 
access  to  the  Rooms,  but  I  have  seen  none  that  at  all  does  justice  to 
this  most  important  part — the  peculiar  policy  followed.  I  strongly 
suspect  that  a  truthful  history  is  not  given,  nor  intended  to  be  given. 
I  thus  infer  from  the  character  of  their  publications  in  the  Herald  ; 
from  the  attempt  of  Dr.  A.  to  deny  to  A.  A.  Phelps,  the  policy  fol- 
lowed ;  from  the  sweeping  denials  of  W.  W.  after  intercourse  with 
the  Rooms  ;  from  the  refusal  of  the  Secretaries  to  give  information, 
which  I  feel  sure  they  possess  ;  from  the  assertions  of  Mr.  Smith 
that  the  aggressive  policy  has  always  been  followed ;  from  the  fact 
that  the  Secretaries,  who  must  have  known  his  statement  was  not 
true,  make  the  Prudential  Committee  endorse  it,  and  recommend  it 
to  the  Board  ;*  and  lastly,  (and  I  say  it  with  deep  regret,)  from  the 
fact  that  several  missionaries  from  that  Mission  were  present  when 
that  report  was  made — as  Bird,  Lannean,  Smith,  and  perhaps  some 
others — who  must  have  known  that  Smith's  statement  thus  recom- 
mended was  not  true.  I  will  not  comment  on  the  morality  of  allow- 
ing such  false  statements  to  be  palmed  on  the  Churches — all  the 
Missionaries  present  who  had  been  connected  with  Missions  to  the 
Oriental  Churches,  from  1830  up  to  1846,  the  time  Smith  made  his 
statement,  must,  I  should  think,  know  that  it  was  not  true.  Why  al- 
low it  to  pass  uncorrected  1 


*  See  annual  report  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  1847,  p.  116. 


APPEAL  TO  THE  A.  B.  C.  F.  M. 


While  in  the  East,  as  a  traveler  and  correspondent  of  a 
religious  journal,  in  1836,  it  was  proposed  to  me  by  the 
brethren  of  the  Beirut  station,  to  remain  and  assist  them. 
They  stated  that  the  absence  of  Messrs.  Bird  and  Smith,  on 
account  of  the  sickness  of  their  Avives,  had  left  the  station 
So  weak,  that  without  aid,  a  part  of  the  mission  work, 
usually  carried  on,  must  be  omitted.  A  similar  request  had 
been  made  to  me,  by  the  brethren  at  Constantinople.  I  con- 
sented to  remain  for  a  time  at  Beirut,  and  soon  after,  with 
the  knowledge  and  approbation  of  the  brethren  then  at  that 
station,  offered  my  services  to  the  Board.  The  Committee 
did  not  accept  my  offer,  and  assigned  as  the  chief  reason  the 
want  of  a  recommendation  from  the  mission.  Neither  the 
members  of  the  mission,  however,  nor  myself,  had  any 
knowledge  that  such  a  thing  was  required.  1  decided  not  to 
renew  my  offer,  and  as  soon  as  circumstances  permitted,  re- 
turned to  the  United  States. 

While  on  mission  ground,  I  had  learned,  and  for  the  first 
time,  the  peculiar  policy  followed  in  the  missions  to  the  Ori- 
ental churches — the  great  silence  both  in  preaching  and 
books,  in  regard  to  the  more  gross  errors  and  corruptions 
that  prevailed — the  plan  of  not  separating  converts  from 
those  churches,  and  the  specific  organization  called  the  Med- 
iterranean Mission  Church,  which  Dr.  Anderson  himself 
helped  to  organize  at  Malta,  in  1829,  and  which  seemed  de- 
signed to  prevent  such  separation. 

This  peculiar  policy  was  repeatedly  referred  to  by  the 
brethren  in  conversation,  and,  as  I  supposed,  with  a  view  to 
draw  out  n:iy  opinion  ;  indeed,  my  opinion  was  at  times  di- 
rectly asked.  While  I  felt  great  doubts  about  it,  so  great 
was  my  confidence  in  the  brethren  who  followed  it,  that  at 
first  I  distrusted  my  own  judgment,  and  thought  that  time 
and  facts  might  possibly  lead  me  to  approve  of  it. 

At  length,  however,  and  about  the  time  I  had  agreed  to 
remain,  my  mind  became  satisfied  that  the  plan  was  neither 
scriptural  nor  wise,  and  I  gave  my  views  in  answer  to  a 
written  request  from  Rev.  D wight,  to  give  them  fully.  At 
the  same  tim*;  he  re(|uested  me  not  to  write  home  on  the 
subject.  I  wrote  to  several  brethren  of  other  stations,  with 
whom  I  had  become  ac(juainted,  and  n  ciuested  a  full  and 
frank  exchange;  of  opinions  on  the  matter.  A  number  of 
letters  were  received  ia  reply,  some  addressed  to  me,  and 


6 


some  to  Rev.  W.  M.  Thomson,  whose  opinions  coincided 
with  mine.  I  was  especially  urged  not  to  write  home.  "I 
do  object,"  said  one,  "  and  1  presume  all  the  missionaries 
would,  to  going  to  the  United  States  to  discuss  this  subject. 
Indeed,  what  need  of  its  being  discussed  there  publicly  at 
all  1  It  is  impossible  the  people  at  home  should  understand 
it  as  well  as  those  on  the  ground.  I  again  entreat  you  not 
to  write  home  on  the  subject,  at  least  for  the  present." 

I  did  not  write  home  on  the  subject ;  but  about  the  time  I 
heard  from  the  Rooms  in  answer  to  my  offer  of  service,  it 
came  to  my  knowledge  incidentally,  that  one  or  more  of 
those  who  advocated  the  policy  Ibllowed,  liad  written  home 
and  reported  my  views.  This  was  done  by  some  who  knew 
that  I  had  been  applied  to,  to  remain ;  who  had  sought  to 
obtain  my  views  on  the  subject,  and  who,  I  had  strong  rea- 
sons to  believe,  knew  that  I  had,  with  the  knowledge  and 
approbation  of  the  Beirut  station,  oflered  my  services  to  the 
Board,  and  the  whole  was  kept  from  me  until  incidentally  I 
found  it  out !  How  many  had  written,  and  the  general  na- 
ture of  their  letters,  I  could  not  and  did  not  learn  until  I 
i-eached  the  United  States.  Then  I  saw  in  the  Herald,  of 
April,  1838,  large  extracts  from  three  letters  which  had  been 
received  at  Beirut,  in  answer  to  my  letter  to  Rev.  Dwight, 
in  which,  at  his  particular  written  request,  I  gave  him  my 
views  of  mission  policy — my  objections  to  the  plan  followed, 
and  my  reasons  for  a  more  open,  plain,  and  scriptural  course. 
In  that  letter  I  referred  to  Mr.  Dwight's  request  that  I  would 
not  write  home  on  that  subject,  and  informed  him  I  had  not 
and  would  not ;  at  least,  until  we  had  a  mutual  understand- 
ing on  the  mattei".  I  informed  him  also,  in  the  same  letter, 
that  I  had  concluded  to  remain  at  least  for  a  time,  and  I 
have  strong  reasons  to  believe  that  when  those  letters  were 
written,  the  writers  knew  that  I  had  offered  my  services  to 
the  Board. 

On  seeing  extracts  of  those  letters  in  the  Herald,  woven 
into  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  peculiar  policy  followed,  I 
wrote  to  Dr.  Anderson,  and  inquired  about  them,  and  whether 
my  letter  to  which  theirs  referred  was  sent  home — and 
whether  those  papers  were  before  the  Committee,  &;c.  He 
gave  me  the  dates  of  the  letters,  showing  that  they  followed 
close  on  the  heels  of  my  oder  of  service  ;  said  they  were  not 
intended  to  reflect  on  me,  and  stated  that  the  Committee  had 
never  seen  any  part  of  them  but  what  was  published  in  the 
Herald,  and  did  not,  he  thought,  know  that  they  had  any  re- 
ference to  me,  or  to  that  ell'ect. 

Before  1  had  received  the  above  statement  from  Dr.  A.,  I 
had  learned  from  some  of  my  I'ricnds,  that  the  Rev.  J.  Bird, 


7 


who  had  recently  returned  from  Syria,  and  who  was  visiting 
the  churches,  in  the  employ  of  the  Rooms,  said  to  them  that 
the  reason  I  received  no  appointment  was,  that  my  views  of 
mission  policy  did  not  agree  with  that  adopted  by  the  Com- 
mittee. I  called  on  Rev.  Armstrong,  (Secretary)  in  New 
York,  and  partly  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  from  him 
how  the  case  was,  I  stated  that  I  supposed  my  views  of 
mission  policy  was  the  reason.  He  did  not  deny  it.  I  told 
him  that  I  was  not  alone  in  my  views,  that  Rev.  W.  JNI. 
Thomson  held  the  same.  He  said  "  they  knew  that."  I 
stated  to  him  the  means  used  to  draw  out  my  opinions  on 
the  subject — the  request  made  that  I  would  not  write  home 
— how  the  whole  matter  of  their  writing  home  was  con- 
cealed from  me,  while  I  was  kept  waiting  nearly  a  year  for 
an  answer.  He  replied  in  substance,  that  personally,  he  was 
very  desirous  that  I  should  be  appointed,  but  while  the  matter 
was  under  consideration  "  those  letters  came,"  and  "  what- 
else,"  said  he,  "  could  the  Committee  do  than  what  they  did  V 
I  replied,  that  if  the  Committee  had  given  the  true  reason  for 
not  giving  me  an  appointment,  and  given  it  at  once  without 
making  me  wait  so  long,  I  did  not  see  that  I  should  have 
much,  if  any  cause,  to  blame  them,  whatever  I  might  think 
of  the  way  those  brethren  had  taken  to  accomplish  their 
purpose.  It  is  due  to  Messrs.  Temple  and  Adger  to  state, 
that  both  of  them  have,  in  letters  to  me,  denied  that  they  in- 
tended their  letters  to  the  Rooms  should  prevent  my  appoint- 
ment. 

Mr.  Smith,  to  whom  I  wrote  and  gave  my  opinion  on  the 
case,  has  passed  it  in  silence.  He  at  least  knew  of  my  ap- 
plication, if  not  at  the  time  he  wrote,  at  least  very  soon  af- 
terwards, for  I  myself  informed  him,  and  he  replied  that  he 
"  considered  me  a  missionary  !"  He  knew  I  was  waiting 
nearly  a  year  to  hear  from  the  Rooms,  and  never  intimated 
that  he  had  written  to  the  Rooms,  what,  according  to  W. 
W.'s  account  of  the  matter,  not  only  in  his  published  pieces 
in  the  Christian  Mirror,  but  in  his  private  letters  to  me,  after 
at  least  two  visits  to  the  Rooms,  was  the  cause  of  my  not 
receiving  an  appointment!  Had  he  openly  opposed,  and 
frankly  told  me  so,  1  could  have  still  esteemed  liirii  an  hon- 
orable man;  but  who  that  has  any  regard  for  propriety  of 
conduct  can  do  so  now  ? 

The  request  made  to  me  by  at  least  two  of  the  brethren, 
that  I  should  not  begin  the  discussion  at  home,  I  had,  as  I 
promised,  complied  with.  ]}ut  when  I  saw  that  all  tlir-  strong 
points  of  the  three  arguments  of  Smith,  Adger,  and  Temple, 
hud  been  taken  and  wrought  over  by  onv.  of  the  strong  men 
at  the  Rooms,  and  spread  before  the  churches  in  the  pages 


8 


of  the  Herald,  Api'il,  1838,  I  felt  that  I  was  no  longer  bound 
to  be  silent.  The  discussion  had  been  begun  on  the  other 
side,  and  with  the  fearful  odds  of  four  to  one,  and  the  first 
blow.  1  felt  free  to  examine  the  fourfold  argument,  and  as 
I  had  weighed  three  parts  of  it  in  Palestine,  and  found  it 
sadly  wanting,  I  concluded  to  try  how  much  it  had  gained 
by  the  passage,  and  the  additions  made  at  the  Rooms.  I 
did  this  in  three  letters  addressed  to  Dr.  Anderson.  They 
were  not  answered.  This  did  not  much  surprise  me,  although 
at  that  time  I  regretted  it.  I  knew  the  subject  was  not  fully 
discussed ;  I  knew  that  1  could  reach  but  a  small  part  of 
those  who  had  the  condensed  arguments  of  four  men  sent 
them  in  the  Herald,  while  neither  the  Herald,  nor  any  of  the 
papers  that  copied  from  it,  would  insert  my  numbers.  That 
no  notice  was  taken  of  my  argument  did  not  surprise  me  ; 
I  had  seen  too  much  of  the  tactics  of  those  who  wish  to  keep 
the  truth  from  the  people,  to  expect  a  public  discussion. 
Who  that  has  paid  any  attention  to  the  papal  and  Jesuitical 
policy,  was  surprised  that  Bishop  Hughes  did  not  fairly  meet 
Kirwan  before  the  public,  on  the  main  points  at  issue  ?  Oc- 
casionally a  papal  priest  or  Jesuit  puts  out  a  bold  face,  but 
if  taken  up  on  the  main  points,  how  sure  to  back  out. 

That  the  plan  was,  by  silence,  to  prevent  public  attention 
from  being  fixed  on  the  subject,  I  did  not  doubt.  I  have  the 
statement  of  a  highly  esteemed  brother  in  the  ministry,  Rev. 
E.  P.  Humphrey,  who,  soon  after  my  letters  came  out,  saw 
Dr.  Anderson,  and  had  some  conversation  with  him  on  the 
subject.  Dr.  A.  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  mission  pol- 
icy, as  then  followed,  was  right,  and  could  be  defended  ;  and 
assigned  as  a  reason  why  my  argument  passed  without  no- 
tice, that  it  would  not,  as  he  thought,  be  much  known,  or  to 
that  effect.  While  at  that  time  I  was  willing  to  have  pur- 
sued the  matter,  had  their  policy  been  farther  defended,  1  did 
not  feel  disposed  to  urge  it  against  their  wishes.  There 
were,  indeed,  several  allusions  to  the  subject,  in  the  two  or 
three  following  years,  of  which  I  might  have  taken  advan- 
tage, as  in  Herald,  1839,  page  36.3,  in  the  instructions  given 
to  Dwight,  Beadle,  and  Sherman,  and  in  1812,  pages  431-2, 
in  which  latter  place  1  did  not  doubt  that  a  rel'erence  was 
made  to  myself,  as  one  of  tliose  ignorant  of  the  language, 
and  who  made  only  a  brief  stay,*  and  was  thus  not  qualilied 
to  judge.  Still,  as  it  was  more  like  the  concealed  hit  of  the 
Jesuit,  than  the  open  attack  of  the  Protestant,  I  let  it  pass. 
A  friend  who  had  long  observed  Dr.  Anderson,  said,  "  he  is 
foxy."    I  considered  this  one  of  his  tricks.    I  had  observed 


•  I  was  on  mission  ground  between  three  and  four  years. 


9 


indications  of  a  change  of  policy,  and  had  been  assured  of  it  in  private 
letters,  and  was  willing  the  past  should  be  forgotten,  if  the  present 
and  future  were  made  right,  and  no  unrighteous  attempts  were  made  to 
deny  the  past  and  thus  falsify  history,  and  pass  off  a  further  deception 
on  the  churches. 

The  whole  matter  had  much  passed  from  my  mind,  when  not  long 
since,  a  series  of  most  disparaging  attacks  were  made  on  me  over 
the  signature  of  W.  W.  in  the  Christian  Mirror,  owned  and  edited  by 
Rev.  A.  Cummings,  a  corporate  member  of  your  Board.  Some  one 
had  published  an  extract  from  one  of  my  letters,  addressed  fo  Dr.  An- 
derson, in  1839,  in  which  I  gave  an  account  of  the  Mission  church, 
as  it  existed  when  I  icas  in  Palestine,  and  stated  tlie  fact  that  up  to 
the  time  /  left,  1838,  no  converts  had  been  separated  from  those  cor- 
iTjpt  churches  and  received  into  the  Mission  church. 

This  statement,  which  I  believe  strictly  true  when  made,  was  not 
alone  assailed,  but  it  was  asserted  that  the  statements,  (no  exceptions 
were  made,)  in  the  letters,  were  declared  by  persons  who  knew  the 
facts,  to  be  "directly  opposite  the  truth  in  the  case" — that  all  was  the 
result  of  prejudice  on  my  part,  owing  to  my  not  receiving  an  appoint- 
ment, but  which  the  missionaries  and  Committee  thought  I  ought  not 
to  receive — or  to  that  effect. 

The  whole  statement  was  so  worded  as  to  make  the  impression 
that  the  writer  had  received  his  information  from  the  Rooms.  I  re- 
plied, and  appealed  to  the  argument  in  the  Herald,  April,  1838,  as 
containing  most  of  the  facts  which  I  had  adduced,  and  as  advocating 
the  policy  against  which  I  argued.  I  appealed  to  the  Rooms  for  the 
truth  of  my  statements  ;  I  appealed  to  Messrs.  Temple  and  Smith, 
who  were  in  this  country,  and  had  advocated  the  policy  which  I  op- 
posed, and  whose  facts  I  had  mainly  used  in  my  answer  to  their  ar- 
guments. I  sent  a  copy  of  my  letters  to  the  editor  of  the  Mirror,  and 
requested  him  as  a  matter  of  plain  justice,  to  read  them,  and  compare 
them  with  the  argument  in  the  Herald,  April,  1838,  and  say  in  his 
paper  whether  my  statement  of  facts  as  to  the  policy  followed  was 
not  true.  I  stated  I  had  no  wish  then  to  renew  tlie  discussion,  and 
would  only  touch  on  such  points  as  self-defense  required. 

The  Secretaries  at  the  Rooms  would  not  answer  my  call,  although 
they  must  have  known  that  my  statements  were  true,  and  must  have 
seen  that  I  was  grossly  calumniated.  Neither  Temple  nor  Smith 
answered  to  my  call.  The  editor  of  the  Mirror  would  not  say 
whether  my  facts  agreed,  or  did  not  agree  with  the  facts  in  the  argu- 
ment, which  I  was  answering;  but  immediately  adn)itted  another 
piece  from  W.  W.  still  more  otlensive  than  the  first,  in  which  most 
of  his  charges  were  renewed,  with  much  in  the  matter  and  maimer, 
which  seemed  designed  to  disparage  me  and  wound  my  feelings. 

I  declined  discussing  any  more  with  such  a  man  publicly,  but  ad- 
dressed him  privately,  and  simply  asked  him  for  his  authority  for  va- 
rious charges  which  he  had  pulilirly  made.  He  answered  my  let- 
ters but  refused  to  giv(!  me  the  iiitbrmation  ;  three  or  four  times  was 
he  written  to,  but  without  obtaining  what  was  asked,  wliih;  several 

2 


10 


things  were  let  out  in  his  replies,  among  much  that  seemed  designed 
to  wound  feelings,  which  pointed  to  the  Rooms  as  the  authority. 

I  then  wrote  to  Dr.  Anderson.  Part  of  the  offensive  charges  of 
W.  W.,  Dr.  A,  must  have  known  were  not  true,  and  most  of  the  re- 
mainder could  be  affuMucd  or  denied  only  at  the  Rooms,  or  by  per- 
sons who  had  received  their  information  from  that  source.  I  called 
his  attention  to  various  parts  of  the  false  and  offensive  charges,  and 
put  the  question  diredhj  whether  things  were  so  and  so,  as  W.  W. 
alledged  ;  whether  W.  W.  had  authority  from  the  Rooms  to  write 
thus  and^hus.  He  admitted  that  W.  W.  had  been  there,  and  that 
he  had  conversation  with  hiui,  but  as  to  the  precise  points,  on  which 
1  mainly  desired  information,  he  evaded  every  one.  He  said  that 
Mr.  Green  had  the  principal  conversation  with  W.  W.  This  looked 
like  being  "  foxy,"  a  scheme  to  slip  out  himself ;  still  I  was  not  sure 
but  it  might  be  so,  and  concluded  to  try  Mr.  Green.  I  took  a  num- 
ber of  extracts  from  W.  W.'s  pieces,  and  transmitted  them  to  Mr. 
Green,  requesting  him,  as  a  matter  of  equity  and  justice  to  let  me 
know  whether  W.  W.  had  authority  from  the  Rooms,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  for  those  statements ;  if  he  had  authority  then  I  asked  the  Sec- 
retaries for  their  authority  for  said  statements.  If  W.  W.  had  in 
part  their  authority,  to  tell  me  how  much — and  if  he  had  no  authority 
to  state  that  fact,  that  I  might  use  it  in  self-defense.  ]\Ir.  Green  ad- 
mitted that  W.  W.  had  been  at  the  Rooms,  and  had  asked  for  infor- 
mation— said  he  told  him  only  what  he  believed  to  be  true — hut 
would  not.  tell  me  ichat  that  was — would  not  say  whether  it  agreed 
with  the  statements  publicly  made  by  W.  W. — would  not  .answer  to 
a  single  ease  of  the  published  statement.  He  informed  me,  however, 
that  about  the  time  he  wrote  me,  he  had  written  to  W.  W.  that  he 
did  not  see  that  any  good  would  grow  out  of  the  discussion — and  he 
gave  me  to  understand,  in  effect,  that  if  my  influence  as  a  minister,  or 
my  character,  was  madp  to  suffer  from  the  charges  of  W.  W.,  it  was 
to  be  ascribed  mainly  to  my  noticing  them,  to  my  giving  them  pub- 
licity. Now  might  not  the  same  be  said  of  a  large  part  of  the  out- 
rages committed  in  society — outrages  which  bring  men  to  the  peni- 
tentiary and  the  gallows  ?  If  those  injured  would  but  be  quiet,  what 
a  fine  time  rogues  and  ruffians,  as  well  as  slanderers,  would  have  ! 
And  this  from  the  Secretaries  of  a  Board  which  proli>sses  to  send  the 
gospel  of  truth,  and  peace,  and  righteousness,  to  the  world,  as  the  only 
sure  means  of  reforming  the  morals  and  saving  the  souls  of  men  !  I 
wrote  to  Mr.  Green  again,  requesting  him,  as  he  said  he  told  W.  W.. 
only  what  he  helieved  was  the  truth,  to  tell  me  what  that  was.  That  I 
was  slow  to  ))elieve  that  W.  VV.  had  avithority  from  the  Rooms  for  all 
his  statements,  but  that  the  Secretaries  could  tell  how  it  was.  No 
answer  could  be  had !  In  regard  to  the  Mission  church  which  W. 
W.  asserted  had  never  existed,  and  gave  the  Secretaries  as  his  au- 
thority, I  asked  Dr.  Anderson,  if  the  reports  of  the  general  meetings 
at  Beirut,  1836  and  1837,  Smyrna,  Sept.  1837,  and  Jerusalem,  1838, 
did  not  make  mention  of  it?  He  would  not  answer.  I  inquired  of 
Mr.  Green — he  was  equally  silent.  I  wrote  to  Rev.  E.  Smith,  who 
was  present  at  all  those  meetings,  and  asked  him  to  state  the  facts 


11 


about  the  Mission  church,  the  existence  of  which  was  now  denied  ; 
he  answered  my  letter,  but  would  give  no  statement  about  tlie  Mis- 
sion church.  I  wrote  him  again,  and  reminded  him  of  facts,  in 
which  he  himself  acted  a  part — told  him  my  statements,  which  he 
must  know  were  true,  had  been  called  in  question,  and  called  on  him 
as  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  a  professed  follower  of  "  the  true  and 
faithful  witness,"  to  state  the  facts  of  the  case.  He  reiused  to  do  it, 
and  sailed  to  Syria,  his  mission  field,  under  your  -patronage. 

As  Rev.  J.  F.  Lanneau,  of  the  same  mission,  who  was  present  at 
three  of  the  above  mentioned  general  meetings,  returned  to  the  U. 
S.  about  that  time,  I  wrote  to  him  and  reported  the  case,  requesting 
of  him  a  frank  statement  of  the  facts.    The  following  is  his  reply : 
"  Rev.  J.  D.  Paxtox.    Dear  BrotJier, 

1st.  It  was  a  fact  that  at  the  time  I  joined  the  mission,  (March, 
1836,)  there  existed  an  organization  called  the  Mediterranean  Mis- 
sion Church,  organized  at  Malta,  a  few  years  previously,  embracing 
most  of  the  members  of  the  missions  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  among 
the  Oriental  Churches  in  Turkey,  Syria,  and  the  Holy  Land.  2d. 
According  to  the  constitution  of  this  church,  no  member  could  be  ad- 
mitted to  any  branch  of  the  same,  without  the  consent  of  all  the  oth- 
ers. :?d.  As  an  individual,  I  did  not  join  this  church,  not  approving 
of  its  adaptation  to  the  practical  operation  of  our  respective  missions 
in  the  East.  4th.  The  subjert  of  a  Mission  church,  in  all  its  bear- 
ings, was  taken  up  and  discussed  at  the  general  meeting  of  the  mis- 
sion, 183G,  and  again  in  1837,  when,  if  1  remember  correctly,  it  was 
resolved  that  on  account  of  our  peculiar  circumstances,  and  the  ob- 
jections against  the  workings  of  this  |)lan,  that  we  confer  with  the 
other  branches  of  tiie  Mediterranean  church,  and  suggest  the  propri- 
ety of  its  dissolution,  and  allowing  to  each  mission  to  form  its  own 
distinct  organization.  5th.  As  Mr.  Smith  was  expecting  to  go  to 
Smyrna  soon  after  the  meeting  in  1837,  my  impression  is  that  he 
was  requested  to  bi  ing  this  subject,  as  well  as  some  other  missionary 
matters,  Ijetbre  the  brethren  in  Turkey,  and  state  to  them  our  views 
of  missionary  policy.  6th.  I  do  not  remember  whether  a  verbal  or 
written  answer  to  these  communications  was  returned  throuirh  Mr. 
{Smith,  at  tlu;  general  meeting  at  Jerusalem,  in  1838,  but  my  impres- 
sion is  that  the  whole  suliject  was  then  and  there  so  disposed  of,  that 
our  mission  has  ever  since  acted  independently  of  our  brethren  of 
the  other  missions  in  this  matter,  and  have  admitted  members  to  our 
communion  at  Ik'irut  and  Jerusalem,  only  on  the  vote  of  the  brethren 
of  the  (liflinent  stations  composing  the  mission  to  Syria  and  the 
Holy  Land." 

Here  all  the  facts  I  had  stated  about  the  mission  chinch  are  con- 
firmed,  and  more  in  detail  than  I  gave  thcMu.  It  existed  and  was  in 
fiperation,  from  lH2i),  when  J)r,  Anderson  was  one  of  the  Committee 
who  repf)rted  the  |)lan,  atid  hel|)ed  to  organize  it,  up  to  1838.  Nor 
was  its  dissolution  followed  innnediatcly  by  any  regular  church  or- 
ganization, but  a  kind  of  conununion,  as  Ri-v.  S.  Woleott  has  assunul 
the  public  in  a  printed  letter.  [See  Christian  Mirror,  May  7,  I^IG.] 
As  Mr.  Smith,  at  the  very  time  W.  W.  was  making  those  charges, 


12 


began  a  set  of  numbers  in  the  N.  Y.  Observer,  on  the  mission  work 
in  Syria,  (July  18,  1846,)  I  could  not  but  notice  statements  made  by 
him  about  the  policy  pursued,  ■which  differed  widcJij  iVom  the  facts  of 
the  case,  and  from  the  ground  taken  and  defended  in  his  letter  to  me 
of  1837,  large  extracts  of  which  were  published  in  the  Herald,  1838. 
And  I  was  not  a  little  surprised,  subsequently,  to  see  that  the  Report 
of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  for  184G,  not  only  notices  his  late  account  of 
the  policy  followed,  but  makes  the  Conmiitteo  recninineiid  it  to  the 
Board  and  churches,  different  and  eontradietory  as  it  manifestly  is 
to  the  account,  which  is  published  in  the  Herald  of  April,  1838.  I 
wrote  to  Mr.  Smith,  calling  his  attention  to  the  statements  he  had 
made,  and  the  manifestly  false  ini|)ression  they  made  as  to  policy  fol- 
lowed in  the  missions  to  the  Oriental  churches  ;  reminded  him  of  his 
letter  to  me  in  1837,  in  which  he  had  defended  what  was  called  the 
"  sapping  and  mining"  policy,  and  told  him  that  he  owed  it  to  him- 
self and  the  truth  io  correct  the  false  impression,  and  that  I  called  his 
attention  to  it  that  he  might  do  this.  He  replied,  in  effect,  that  when 
he  wrote  those  late  numbers,  he  thought  he  was  telling  the  truth, 
and  would  not  now  correct  it — that  as  to  its  agreement  with  what  ho 
had  written  me  in  1837,  he  coukl  not  say,  as  he  had  not  that  letter 
with  him.  I  replied  immediately,  in  substance,  that  a  co|)y  of  his 
letter  to  me  of  1837,  was  at  the  Mission  House,  where  he  himself 
had  sent  it — that  he  owed  it  to  his  own  character  to  set  the  matter 
right — that  others  as  well  as  myself  had  noticed  the  disagreement 
between  what  he  now  said  and  the  plan  advocated  in  the  Herald, 
April,  1838,  by  Adger,  Temple,  himself,  and  the  Rooms — that  if  he 
did  not  correct  it,  I  might  feel  it  due  to  truth  to  do  it.  He  returned 
to  Palestine  without  correcting  his  statements. 

I  will  now  give  an  extract  from  his  late  account  of  the  mission  pol- 
icy, and  also  from  his  former  account,  that  all  may  see  how  the  mat- 
ter stands. 

In  the  first  of  his  late  numbers,  July  18,  1846,  under  the  head  of 
"  the  nature  of  the  instructions"  given,  he  makes  this  statement  : 

"  It  has  not  been  limited  to  a  simple  inculcation  of  the  saving  truths 
of  the  gospi'l,  without  bringing  into  notice  their  bearing  upon  the 
current  errors  and  superstitions.  The  pionetu's  of  the  Syrian  mis- 
sion, Fisk  and  King,  Bird  and  (ioodell,  l)egan  by  openly  and  directly 
attacking  those  errors  and  supei  stitions,  and  this  feature  of  direct  ag- 
gression has  ever  characterized  our  instructions.  In  our  public  ser- 
vices, whatever  doctrine  or  duty  is  under  consideration,  its  bearing 
upon  existing  errors  and  abuses  is  uniformly  pointed  out.  Our  books 
and  tracts  are  of  the  same  character.  One  is  a  translation  of  Nevin's 
on  Popery  ;  another,  a  still  more  pointed  exhiliition  of  the  errors  of 
the  same  faith,  in  a  series  of  letters  from  Mr.  Bird,  and  several  more 
have  the  same  aggressive  character.  All  these  are  more  called  for 
than  any  other  of" our  books,  except  the  Scriptures  and  school  books. 
Such  instrucli(')ns  not  only  increase  the  sensitiveness  of  the  people  to 
the  faults  of  their  cleigy,  but  open  their  eyes  to  the  errors  of  their 
faith.  Their  confidence  in  their  priests  is  gradually  withdrawn, 
while  in  us  it  is  extended.    In  such  a  state  of  sentiment  respecting 


13 


the  faults  of  their  church  and  clergy,  if  spiritual  life  is  imparted  to 
any,  they  are  unfitted  to  remain  in  their  former  ecclesiastical  con- 
nections. The  consequence  is,  that  every  individual,  of  whom  we 
have  had  reason  to  hope  that  he  has  been  born  again,  has  left  his 
church  and  come  to  us  for  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel."  To  enlarge 
the  extracts  would  make  the  case  stronger. 

Compare  this  with  his  former  account  of  the  matter,  Herald,  April, 
1838.  I  had,  in  my  letter  to  Dwight,  objected  to  the  plan  of  leaving 
converts  in  those  corrupt  churches — of,  as  it  was  termed,  '•  working 
in  them,"  and  not  separating  converts  from  them,  and  among  other 
reasons  made  this  statement. 

'■  Those  churches  are,  it  will  be  admitted,  in  fatal  error.  It  is 
another  gospel  they  hold.  There  is  a  deep  and  deadly  idolatrj'.  I 
hold  that  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  is  as  damnable  as  the  worship  of 
Moloch  or  the  Devil.  She  is  certainly  the  better  character,  but  that 
does  not  save  her  worship  from  being  idolatry,  and  idolatry  is  a  dam- 
ning sin,  and  God's  people  are  not  to  have  religious  fellowship  with 
idolaters.  (1  Cor.  v.  11 ;  and  vi.  9.)  Fuaz,  Tannoos.  and  Trodd,  the 
best  converts  here,  all  say  that  they  cannot  remain  in  those  churches 
without  partaking  of  idolatry — that  they  have  tried  it.  The  plan, 
then,  at  the  outset,  systematically  sets  aside  a  Scripture  rule.  Now 
I  must  doubt  any  system  that  thus  sets  aside  a  Scripture  canon. 
When  brother  Shauffler  sent  the  converted  Jew  to  an  idolatrous  church, 
he  may  have  had  the  advice  of  a  supposed  expediency,  but  certainly 
not  of  Scripture."  Most  of  Mr.  Smith's  answer  to  this  we  have  in 
Herald,  April,  1838  ;  part  of  it  I  give.  I  have  had  a  desire  that 
they  should,  [remain  in  the  corrupt  churches.]  if  they  could  do  it  con- 
scientiously, and  not  transgress  the  Scriptures.  Whether  they  can, 
I  have  letl  to  themselves  to  decide,  knowing  that  there  are  now  in 
the  Greek  church,  in  Russia,  a  considerable  number  of  pious  persons, 
and  that  there  have  been  such  in  the  Latin  church  in  latter  days. 
That  they  would  thereby  compromise  themselves  with  idolatry-.  I  do 
not  think  so  easily  decided.  I  know  the  opinion  of  our  native  breth- 
ren at  Beirut.  The  native  brethren  at  Constantinople  think  ditler- 
ently,  and  the  latter  are,  for  aught  I  can  see,  as  valuable  men  as  the 
other.  That  to  partake  of  idolatry  L?  a  great  sin,  a  fatal  sin,  I  have 
no  doubt,  though  I  do  not  think  the  passage  1  Cor.  v  :  11,  is  exactly 
to  the  point."  In  1837  he  preferred  their  remaining  in  those  churches, 
the  danger  of  partaking  of  damnable  sin  notwithstanding ;  but  in 
1846  is  greatly  pleased  at  their  coming  out.  No  change  here  ?'  I 
objected  to  the  plan  followed,  that  it  was  silent  respecting  the  damna- 
ble errors — the  deep  and  fatal  departures  from  the  gospel — the  little 
done  to  inform  the  people  what  the  gospel  was,  and  the  extent  of 
their  departures  I'rom  it — and  the  necessity,  on  peril  of  penlition,  of 
"  turning  from  these  errors  and  receiving  the  truth."  Mr.  Smith  has 
a  long  reply:  a  part  of  which  is  in  the  llerald,  April,  1838,  whence 
I  take  this  extract,  as  far  as  thi  rr  given  : 

"  I  have  habitually  preached  that  baptism  could  not  save  them,  and 
have  often  warned  them  that  there  was  no  merit  in  their  fasting.  I 
have  told  them  that  no  one  but  God  could  ibrgive  their  sins,  and  given 


14 


the  reasons.  I  have  taught  that  none  but  he  is  to  be  worshiped,  and 
that  Jesus  is  the  only  mediator,  and  have  proved  it  out  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, preaching  whole  sermons  on  it."  7wi  Ihink  it  best,  in 
a  mixed  congregation,  manij  of  whom  v-ere  not  at  all  prepared,  per- 
haps, for  the  announcement,  to  say,  in  so  many  words,  you  7}iust  not 
worship  the  Virgin,  nor  confess  to  the  priests,  nor  pray  to  the  saints. 
I  left  them  to  draw  their  own  inferences  for  themselves.  I  thought 
this,  and  still  think  it,  the  most  effectual  way  of  accomplishing  my  ob- 
ject." This  latter  part,  marked  as  Italics,  (and  much  of  it  is  thus 
marked  in  Mr.  Smith's  letter  now  before  me,)  is  omitted  in  the  Her- 
ald. All  must  see  that  it  qualifies  his  whole  mode  of  preaching. 
His  own  statement  here  shows  that  he  did  not  always,  nor  usually, 
if  ever,  point  out  specifically  the  errors  opposed  to  the  truth.  He 
preached — he  left  it  to  the  people  to  infer  ;  whereas,  in  his  late  num- 
bers he  says  they  always  did  point  out  the  errors  opposed,  and  "  have 
all  along  followed  this  aggressive  course."  The  question  is  not  now 
which  course  is  the  best,  but  whether  Mr.  Smith's  late  statement, 
that  they  always  pointed  out  the  errors,  agrees  with  the  facts.  And 
how  could  the  Secretaries  and  Conimhtee  be  ignorant  of  this  with 
the  documents  which  they  possessed — his  letter  in  their  hands  ? 

Again,  he  says  in  answering  niy  remarks  about  the  great  sin  of 
idolatry,  "  Idolatry  is  a  great  sin,  but  they  don't  feel  it  so.  On  the 
contrary,  when  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  is  attacked,  instead  of  be- 
ing conscience-smitten,  the  most  religious  feelings  they  have  are 
wounded,  and  they  feel  conscience-bound  to  rise  up  against  you. 
Were  there  no  other  way  of  getting  at  them,  we  should  have  to  try 
this,  or  leave  them.  But  there  is  another  way,  and  it  is  the  most  di- 
rect one  I  know  of^ — charge  upon  them  their  sins  of  heart  and  life, 
what  I  might  call  their  personal  sins."  Again.  "  I  have  not  con- 
cealed my  opinion  on  these  points,  nor  observed  that  guarded  silence 
of  which  you  speak.  When  I  have  found  an  enlighlein^d  individual 
in  a  state  of  mind  to  receive  conversation  on  them  more  fully,  and 
yet  trammeled  by  them,  or  an  incjuirer  embarrassed  by  them,  1  have 
spoken  freely." 

Now  how  do  these  statements  agree  with  his  late  declarations, 
that  always  the  aggressive  course  has  been  followed — of  pointing  out 
the  errors  and  superstitions  which  came  in  the  way  '.'  Mr.  Smith  ad- 
mitted also,  in  1837,  that  the  same  caution  was  used  in  regard  to  the 
books  circulated,  and  that  there  was  a  rule  adopted  by  the  Syrian 
Mission,  (and  if  1  am  not  mistaken,  mainly  through  his  influence,) 
which  gi-eatly  limited,  yea,  almost  stopped  the  circulation  of  books 
such  as  Bird's,  to  which  he  refers  in  his  late  numbers.  He  specified 
three  copies  of  Bird's  book  given  away  in  perhaps  thrice  as  many 
years,  on  special  application  being  made  for  them  ! 

Now  the  point  is,  how  to  reconcile  this  with  tiie  impression  which 
his  late  statement  made,  as  to  the  aggressive  character,  and  free  cir- 
culation of  the  books  ;  and  how  could  the  Secretaries  and  Commit- 
tee be  ignorant  of  this  /  His  letter  to  me  is  at  the  Rooms,  and  large 
extracts  from  it  they  had  printed.  The  greater  part  here  quoted  had, 
however^,  been  ki!pt  back.    Finding  1  could  gain  no  information  from 


15 


the  Secretaries,.  I  addressed  an  appeal  from  them  to  the  Prudential 
Committee,  of  which  the  following  is  the  substance.  As  I  knew 
from  Dr.  Anderson's  own  statement  that  documents  had  come  to  the 
Rooms  touching  my  case,  which  the  Committee  had  not  seen,  and  as 
I  was  strongly  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  they  had  acted  in  the 
darii,  and  were  still  kept  in  the  dark  in  some  matters,  I  stated  to  them 
the  circumstances  in  which  I  had  been  led  to  offer  my  services,  and 
requested  them  to  read  my  letters  to  Dr.  A.  of  Nor.  1336,  and  April, 
1833,  and  his  letter  to  me,  June,  1833.  I  stated  how  my  views  of 
mission  policy  had  been  drawn  from  me  by  repeated  application  and 
written  request,  while  I  was  asked  not  to  write  home  on  the  subject. 
That  others  had  written  home  and  reported  my  views,  and  kept  that 
fact  from  me.  I  requested  them  to  read  my  letter  of  Dec.  1S38,  to 
Dr.  A.,  and  his  reply.  Stated  how  I  was  led  to  examine  the  argu- 
ment in  the  Herald,  April,  1833,  in  three  letters  to  Dr.  A.  I  caUed 
their  attention  to  the  late  disparaging  attack  on  me  by  W.  W.,  which 
is  so  made  as  to  create  the  impression  that  he  had  his  authority  from 
the  Rooms,  and  in  case  he  had  not,  nothing  was  easier  than  for  the 
Secretaries  to  state  that  fact,  which,  however,  they  had  refiised  to  do, 
although  appealed  to  again  and  again — I  desired  them  to  read  my 
letters  to  the  Secretaries.  That  to  Dr.  A.,  Aug.  1346.  His  reply, 
Sept.,  1846.  To  Mr.  Green,  Dec.  1346.  His  reply,  Jan.  1847, 
My  second  to  Mr.  Green,  Jan.  1847,  to  which,  as  to  the  main  point, 
I  received  no  reply.  I  called  their  attention  to  my  request  made  to 
the  Secretaries  to  know  if  the  reports  of  the  general  meetings  of  the 
missions,  as  above  referred  to,  did  not  make  such  mention  of  the  mis- 
sion church  as  to  show  that  it  was  in  operation.  This  information 
had  been  refused  me  by  the  Secretaries.  I  made  my  appeal  to  them 
and  requested  information  on  the  following  points  : 

1.  Did  the  missionaries  oppose  my  appointment,  as  W.  \V.  al- 
ledges,  and  was  that  the  reason  why  I  received  none  ?  Did  they  pro- 
test, etc.  ?  2.  Did  Mr.  Smith  oppose,  as  W.  W.  has  published,  and 
in  two  private  letters  alledged  ?  and  this  after  making  at  least  two 
visits  to  the  Rooms.  If  so,  I  asked  copies  of  such  papers.  If  the 
Secretaries  have  thus  through  W.  W.  made  known  these  facts,  with 
a  view  to  disparage  me,  I  asked,  as  a  matter  of  common  justice,  to  see 
those  papers.  3.  I  desired  to  know  if  the  reports  of  the  general 
missionary  meetings  above  referred  to,  did  not  make  mention  of  the 
mission  church,  and  record  action  about  it,  which  showed  its  exist- 
ence. I  urged  my  appeal  from  the  Scriptural  duty  of  promoting  truth 
between  man  and  man — from  the  j)lain  teaching  of  God's  word  in 
relation  to  calumny  and  evil  reports,  Ps.  151 — from  the  relation  of  the 
Committee  to  a  great  religious  institution,  designed  to  promote  reli- 
gion and  good  morals  in  the  world  ;  and  entreated  them  to  do  me  the 
justice  which  the  Secretaries  refiised. 

1  received  in  reply  a  lclf':'r  from  Mr.  Green,  one  of  the  Secretaries 
complained  of,  stating  that  in  the  absence  of  the  person  to  whom  my 
appeal  was  addressed,  it  came  into  his  hands — was  read  to  the  Com- 
mittee at  their  meeting,  July  20,  1347,  but  that  the  Committee  did 
not  feel  it  their  duty  to  look  into  the  matter,  alledging  that  I  had  no 


16 


injustice  done  me  by  ' any  one  connected  with  the  Rooms.  It  does 
not  stale  how  the  Committee  ascertained  the  fact  that  no  injustice 
had  been  done  me,  without  looking  into  the  documents  to  which  I 
had  referred  them.  I  am  led  to  infer  that  they  took  the  word  of  the 
Secretaries,  from  whose  course  I  had  appealed  !  ! 

With  advice  which  would  command  respect,  did  I  think  it  needful  , 
to  give  names,  I  prepared  a  memorial  to  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  about 
to  meet  at  Bufialo.    Circumstances  prevented  me  from  bringing  it 
before  them,  and  the  matter  has  been  deferred  until  now. 

There  are  a  number  of  points,  to  which  I  wish  especially  to  call 
the  attention  of  my  readers  and  the  members  of  the  Board. 

1st.  If  the  missionaries  opposed  and  protested  against  my  appoint- 
ment, then  Dr.  Anderson  made  statements  to  me  in  1838,  which 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  truth.  On  seeing  those  extracts  from  let- 
ters of  Temple,  Adger,  and  Smith,  on  mission  policy,  I  wrote  Dr. 
Anderson,  inquiring  about  those  letters,  and  whether  my  letter  to 
which  they  were  answers  was  sent  to  the  Rooms — whether  all  had 
been  before  the  Committee,  with  other  questions,  intending  to  ascer- 
tain whether  they  were  not  the  cause  why  I  was  not  appointed.  Dr. 
A.  answered,  "  The  letters  were  sent  me  as  a  matter  of  information, 
and  not  to  reflect  on  you,  and  with  no  reference  to  the  question  of 
your  appointment  as  a  missionary,  for  the  writers  knew  nothing  of 
your  ofler  of  service.  No  part  of  this  correspondence,  except  that 
published  in  the  Herald,  has  been  seen  by  members  of  the  Commit- 
tee, nor  am  I  aware  that  any  member  knows  that  the  letters  which 
are  in  part  published  in  the  April  Herald,  1838,  had  any  relation  to 
you.*  When  Mr.  Smith  sent  me  a  copy  of  his  letter,  he  sent  me 
also  a  copy  of  yours  to  Mr.  Dwight,  to  which  his  was  a  reply."  Dr. 
A.  also  mentions  Adger's  letter,  as  also  Temple's,  and  says,  "  He 
(Mr.  Temple)  speaks  of  your  letter  as  frank,  kind,  and  Christian,  in 
its  spirit,  and  he  trusted  would  do  them  good,  though  he  dissented 
from  some  of  your  practical  views."  In  a  postscript  he  adds,  "  As 
I  have  understood  in  some  way  that  you  suppose  Mr.  Smith  and  Mr. 
Temple  wrote  against  your  appointment,  1  would  say  that  I  have  no  _ 
knowledge  of  their  alluding  to  the  subject  before  they  had  heard  of 
the  result." 

Here  is  a  double  denial  that  those  brethren  opposed,  or  even  knew 
of  my  offer  of  service  when  they  wrote.  How  can  this  be  recon- 
ciled with  W.  W.'s  statement  both  in  public  and  private,  and  that 
after  repeated  visits  to  the  Mission  House.  Which  are  we  to  be- 
lieve ?  Nor  can  I  reconcile  Dr.  Anderson's  statement  above  made, 
with  what  Dr.  Armstrong  had  admitted  to  me  just  before.  I  do  most 
solemnly  affirm  that  in  reply  to  my  remark,  that  my  views  of  mission 
policy,  I  supposed,  was  the  reason  I  received  no  appointment,  he  did 
not  deny,  and  I  considered  him  as  admitting  it ;  but  he  remarked  to 
this  effect,  and  I  believe  in  these  words,  That  he  was  d(!sirous  that  I 


*  Note.  The  fair  inference  is  that  the  Committee  saw  those  parts  only  after 
they  wore  published  ;  and  this  was  not  until  more  than  twelve  months  after  my 
application  reached  the  Rooms. 


17 


should  receive  an  appointment,  but  "  then  those  letters  came,  and 
what  else,"  said  he  "  could  the  Committee  do  than  what  they  did  ?'" 
I  replied  that  if  the  Committee  had  assigned  the  true  reason,  and 
that  at  once,  without  keeping  me  in  suspense  so  long,  I  did  not  see 
that  I  should  have  much  cause  to  complain  of  them,  whatever  I 
might  think  of  the  way  taken  by  the  writers  to  effect  their  object. 

Why  was  Dr.  Anderson  so  careful  in  1S3S,  to  make  it  out  that 
those  brethren  had  no  hand  in  the  matter,  and  in  1S46  and  1S47  to 
allow  a  man,  after  visiting  the  Mission  House,  to  publish  those 
brethren  as  opposed  ?  And  why,  when  called  on  in  public,  and 
appealed  to  in  private,  refuse  to  put  the  matter  right  Was  it  be- 
cause in  1838  he  wished  to  keep  me  silent  on  the  whole  matter, 
and  hush  it  up,  while  in  1846  he  wished  to  have  me  defamed  for 
daring  to  state  facts  about  the  mission  policy,  which  he  had  care- 
fully kept  concealed  from  the  public  ? 

Take  another  fact  in  its  bearings  on  this  case.  Not  long  after 
my  first  piece  in  self-defense  against  the  disparaging  attack  made 
on  me  by  W.  W.,  I  received  a  letter  signed  A.  A.  Phelps,  inform- 
ing me  that  he  had  no  doubt  that  Dr.  Anderson  was  W.  W.'s  au- 
thority for  the  charges  made  against  me.  That  he  himself  had 
heard  Dr.  A.  make  almost  identically  the  same  statement.  See 
Christian  Mirror,  May  7,  1846,  where  he  repeats  and  gives  Wol- 
cott's  letter.  I  replied  to  the  writer  that  his  statements  surprised 
me,  and  requested  him  to  give  me  the  facts  of  the  case  as  nearly 
as  he  could.  He  replied,  *'  in  February  last,  on  my  return  from 
the  Convention  at  Syracuse,  Dr.  A.  was  in  the  cars — inquired  what 
we  had  done  in  Convention — asked  to  see  the  address — on  reading 
the  extract  from  you.  he  said  it  was  not  true — that  the  Syrian  mis- 
sion did  not  pursue  that  policy — that  they  had  abandoned  it  long 
ago.  This  led  to  an  inquiry  wherein  you  were  wrong  and  an  at- 
tempt to  explain,  and  at  length  to  the  inquiry,  why,  if  things  were 
as  Dr.  A.  stated,  your  representations  had  never  been  corrected? 
To  which  he  replied  that  they  (the  Secretaries)  made  it  a  rule  not 
to  repl)'  to  any  communications  addressed  to  them  in  the  public 
papers.  To  which  I  said  they  need  not  have  done  it  themselves — 
that  they  had  friends  enough  to  do  it — that  it  was  very  strange 
that  none  of  the  missionaries  had  done  it — that  Mr.  Smith  had  been 
in  this  country  a  great  deal,  and  written  a  great  deal  for  the  pa- 
pers, and  it  was  singular  that  he  had  never  corrected  you,  Ace. 
Then  came  the  remarks  concerning  you  personally.  The  sub- 
stance of  them,  and  the  impression  they  left  on  my  mind,  were  to 
this  effect :  that  you  were  unfriendly  to  the  Board — that  your  let- 
ters were  the  result  of  that  unfriendliness — that  your  representa- 
tions on  that  account  were  unjust  in  their  bearings  on  the  Board 
and  the  missionaries,  being  those  of  a  prejudiced  witness — that 
particularly  what  you  say  in  the  extract  quoted  was  not  true — that 
the  missionaries  in  Syria  had  a  church,  and  that  it  was  not  their 
policy  to  do  as  you  represent. 

When  I  asked  him  how  you  came  to  be  unfriendly,  he  mentioned 
your  acquaintance  with  Mrs.  Dodge,  your  application  for  an  »p- 

3 


18 


poihtment,  and  their  refusal  to  appoint  you.  I  think  he  said  in 
terms  that  you  were  '  piqued'  at  not  being  appointed  ;  and  when  I 
asked  why  they  did  not  appoint  you,  the  answer  was,  the  Commit- 
tee did  not  think  him  a  suitable  man." 

My  statement,  which  Dr.  A.  here  says  is  not  true,  was  made 
Spring,  1839 — written  less  than  one  year  from  the  time  I  left  Pal- 
estine. In  the  very  first  sentence  of  the  passage  quoted  in  the  ad- 
dress, I  refer  distinctly  to  the  state  of  matters,  and  policy  followed, 
up  to  the  time  I  left,  and  I  insist  upon  it  that  my  statement  is  true, 
as  to  its  fair  import.  It  does  not  relate  to  1846,  but  to  what  existed 
up  to  the  Spring  of  1838,  when  I  left ;  and  yet  he  asserts  my  state- 
ment was  not  true.  He  asserts  that  the  missionaries  had  a  church 
— Wolcott^ays  they  had  not,  but  only  a  communion,  and  that  my 
statement  of  things,  as  existing  when  I  saw  them,  was  "  a  true 
bill,"  as  he  believes. 

Why  could  not  Dr.- Anderson,  if  he  thought  my  statements  not 
correct,  point  out  the  errors  when  they  first  appeared  '?  Why  did 
he  not  tell  Rev.  Humphrey,  my  neighbor,  that  my  account  was 
not  true  ?  Then  he  justified  the  missions,  and  took  the  ground  that 
the  policy  followed,  the  "  sapping  and  mining,"  could  be  defended. 
Why  not  meet  me  fairly  and  openly,  like  a  man  and  a  Protestant  ? 
why  resort  to  the  loui,  underhand,  Jesuitical  mode  of  insinuation, 
"  whispering,"  asssigning  reasons  which  he  knows  are  false  ? 
Their  rule  is,  it  would  seem,  not  to  answer  public  statements  ;  but 
it  allows  them  to  travel  about  at  the  expense  of  the  Board,  and  pri- 
vately assail  persons,  putting  out  statements,  which  papers  in  their 
own  possession  show  are  false ! 

Compare  Dr.  A.'s  statement  above  given  with  that  made  by  W. 
W.,  a  few  weeks  afterwards.  "  He,  (Mr.  Paxton)  testifies  that  co»- 
verts  are  refused  admission  into  the  mission  church,  and  are  forced 
against  their  will  to  retain  their  old  church  connection.  A  grave 
charge  this,  if  true  ;  but  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case  1  These 
converts  are  taken  into  the  full  fellowship  of  the  mission  church, 
and  are  under  the  same  kind,  fraternal  watch  of  the  missionaries, 
as  if  they  literally  belonged  to  it.  Tlioy  enjoy  all  its  privileges  and 
sympathies,  and  why  does  not  Mr.  P.  give  us  the  whole  story  ?  Per- 
haps I  can  give  a  clue  to  this  secret.  Some  years  since  Mr.  Pax- 
ton  traveled  in  the  East.  He  visited  Palestine,  and  became  affi- 
anced to  a  missionary  lady  there.  Her  missionary  zeal,  no  doubt, 
burned  brigliter  in  lier  heart  tlian  any  other  flame.  Mr.  Paxton  ap- 
plied for  an  appointment  as  missionary  to  Palestine.  But  owing 
to  circumstances,  wiiich  I  do  not  think  bear  particularly  on  his 
moral  character,  the  missionaries  there,  and  the  Committee  at 
home,  thought  it  not  best  that  ho  should  be  appointed.  He  returned 
to  this  country,  and  wrote  a  series  of  letters  in  a  newspaper, 
against  the  mission  in  Syria.  From  these  letters  Mr.  Phelps  makes 
his  extracts.  Those  who  know  the  facts  in  the  case,  say  that  those 
published  statements  of  Mr.  P.  are  directly  opposite  to  the  truth  in 
this  matter.  And  who  will  wonder — a  prejudiced  mind  cannot  be 
relied  on,  though  honest,  either  in  its  opinions  or  interpretations  of 


19 


facts.  And  shall  we  trust  the  opinions  of  a  man,  or  his  version  of 
facts,  who  stands  thus  affected  and  prejudiced,  when  they  come  in 
conflict  with  the  testimony  and  judgment  of  a  whole  corps  of  mis- 
sionaries there,  and  with  those  of  returned  missionaries  too  ?  His 
testimony  is  contradicted  by  scores  of  witnesses,  each  of  whom  are 
as  well  qualified  to  judge  in  the  matter  as  lie.  I  appeal  to  the 
world  to  decide  so  far,  if  Mr.  Phelps  has  brought  proof  to  sustain 
his  charges,  that  would  not  be  ruled  out  of  a  court  of  justice  1" 

All  must  perceive  the  general  agreement  of  Dr.  A.'s  and  W. 
W.'s  statements.  Both  deny  my  statements  to  be  true  ;  both 
charge  me  with  prejucice;  and  both  alledge  that  my  prejudice 
arose  from  not  receiving  an  appointment ;  both  refer  to  Mrs.  P. 
Now  Dr.  Anderson  and  Greene  both  admit  that  VV.  W.  was  at  the 
Rooms  about  the  time  he  wrote.  Who  can  doubt  that  W.  W.  had 
his  authority  from  that  source  ? 

Now  Dr.  A.  knew  that  my  opinions  on  mission  policy  were  made 
up  long  before  I  heard  from  the  Rooms.  His  letter  to  me  of  Jan., 
1839,  proves  that  my  letter  to  Dwight,  giving  my  views  in  full, 
together  with  the  replies  of  Temple,  Adger,  and  Smith,  were  at 
the  Rooms,  months  before  my  applicatiofi  was  answered.  He  knew 
that  the  facts  in  my  three  letters  to  him  were  mostly  taken  from 
the  Herald.  He  must  have  known  that  my  statement  about  the 
mission  church  was  true  ;  yet  he  says  my  statement  is  "  not  true" 
— that  my  account  of  the  policy  is  "  not  true" — and  charges  all  to 
prejudice,  and  the  origin  of  that  prejudice  to  my  not  receiving  an 
appointment. 

'l"he  statement  of  W.  W.  is  only  a  more  reckless  repetition  of 
the  same  things,  with  a  manifest  attempt  to  break  down  my  char- 
acter, which  he  seems  to  think  he  has  so  done,  that  my  testimony 
would  not  be  admitted  in  a  court  of  justice.  It  is  a  custom  of  the 
Jesuits  to  employ  unprincipled  men  to  assassinate,  or  destroy  the 
character  of  those  who  incur  their  displeasure.  As  Dr.  A.  knew 
at  the  time  that  my  statements  wore  true,  so  I  have  evidence  to  be- 
lieve that  W.  W.  did  when  he  wrote  his  pieces. 

About  the  time  W.  W.'s  second  piece  came  out  against  me,  re- 
peating substantially  the  charges  as  made  in  the  first,  and  in  a  still 
more  offensive  way,  I  received  a  letter  from  A.  A.  Phelps,  con- 
taining the  following  information  : 

"  Mr.  Warren  did  visit  the  Mission  Rooms  between  his  fir.st  and 
second  letters  respecting  you.  He  wrote  me  as  the  result  of  it, 
proposing  that  if  I  would  substantially  retract  what  I  had  said  about 
the  Sandwich  Islands  and  Oriental  missions,  he  would  let  me  otT 
easily  ;  otherwise  he  proposed  to  make  a  'triumphant  termination' 
of  the  controversy.  Of  course,  I  spurned  his  proposal.  His  Ian- 
guage  is  as  follows,  the  letter  being  dated  Windham,  June  1,  1846. 
'  I  have  spent  most  of  the  past  week  in  Boston.  I  have  carefully 
searched  documents  there,  and  been  kindly  permitted  to  lay  my 
hand  upon  whatever  I  wanted  in  the  archives  of  the  Missionary 
Rooms  ;'  and  other  items  are  slated,  showing  tiic  amount  of  infor- 
mation he  had  obtained,  and  by  which  he  supposed  he  would  be 


20 


able;  if  I  did  not  retract,  to  make,  as  he  says,  '  a  triumphant  ter- 
mination'  of  the  controversy." 

"  I  will  farther  state,  that  when  Warren  wrote  his  second  letter, 
he  had  a  letter  in  his  possession  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wolcott,  in 
which  the  latter  informed  him  fully  in  regard  to  the  policy  of  those 
missions  generally,  and  e.xpressed  his  belief  that  your  representa- 
tion of  affairs  was  strictly  true,  as  they  were  when  you  were  there. 
The  published  statement  of  Mr.  Wolcott,  which  I  send  you  with 
this,  bears  you  out  in  all  points  but  one,  respecting  those  missions 
generally.  You  will  see  in  my  remarks  accompanying  that  state- 
ment, that  I  said,  I  believed  he  would  say  so  if  it  were  necessary. 
The  truth  was,  he  had  said  to  me  in  a  private  note,  accompany- 
ing the  statement  for  the  public.  His  language  was,  'I  should  say 
that  your  extract  from  Mr.  Paxton,  which  I  have  carefully  exam- 
ined, was  a  true  bill  of  wliat  he  found  in  Beirut.  It  is  mainly  trse 
still,  except  in  regard  to  the  plan  or  policy  of  the  mission,  and  on 
that  point  there  has  been  since  he  was  there,  a  very  marked  ad- 
vance of  sentiments  in  the  mission,  in  the  direction  indicated  in 
the  inclosed.'  All  this  was  virtually  before  Warren  when  he 
wrote  his  second  letter  of  the  series  ;  and  substantially  all  this,  and 
more  was  actually  before  him  at  an  earlier  period,  in  Wolcott's 
letter  to  him,  named  above — a  letter,  by-the-by,  which  Wolcott 
made  Warren  send  me,  in  proof  that  he  had  told  Warren  as  much 
as  he  had  told  me.  You  will  see  that  there  has  been  some  work- 
ing behind  the  scenes,  but  it  is  too  long  a  story  to  tell  you  more  of 
it.  Enough  that  Warren  was  handsomely  caught  in  his  own 
snare." 

Here  we  have  light  on  various  points  which  touicli  the  core  of 
the  subject  under  controversy.  As  W.  W.  had  intercourse  with 
the  Secretaries  before  he  wrote  his  first  attack  on  mo,  and  did  lit- 
tle more  than  repeat  in  a  more  rash  manner,  what  Dr.  A.  had  told 
A.  A.  Phelps  a  little  before,  in  a  public  car,  so  now,  after  I  had 
appealed  to  the  pages  of  the  Herald,  April,  1838,  for  the  truth  of 
my  facts — had  appealed  to  the  Rooms — had  appealed  to  Messrs. 
Temple  and  Smith  for  the  truth  of  my  statements,  both  as  to  facts 
and  the  mission  policy  followed — W.  W.  visits  the  Rooms,  spends 
nearly  a  week  there,  has  free  access  to  papers,  «Scc. — moreover  he 
receives  a  written  statement  from  Wolcott,  who  had  lately  returned 
from  Palestine,  assuring  him  of  the  truth  of  my  statements,  and 
when  he  did  not  give  a  due  weight  to  this  statement  of  Wolcott,  he 
was  made  to  transmit  it  to  A.  A.  Phelps,  in  proof  that  he  had  in- 
formation which  he  had  suppressed,  anJ  after  all  he  goes  on  in  a 
second  and  third  letter  to  abuse  me  in  the  public  prints,  and  repre- 
sent my  statements  as  unworthy  of  credit. 

Now  if  the  Secretaries  let  him  know  the  truth  in  the  case,  where 
was  his  truth  or  honesty,  and  where  was  it  any  way,  in  continu- 
ing to  make  such  public  charges  as  he  did,  witli  Wolcott's  state- 
ment before  him.  And  if  the  Secretaries  withheld  the  trutii  from 
him — made  a  wholly  false  impression  on  his  mind,  as  Dr.  A.  had 
done  on  A.  A.  Phelps,  where  is  their  truth  or  honesty  ?    When  I 


21 


frankly  and  respectfully  appealed  to  them,  why  not  as  gentlemen 
and  Christian  ministers  meet  the  call  ?  Was  it  because  they  had 
already  told  W.  VV.  one  story,  and  were  thus  committed  ;  and  de- 
pended on  the  weight  of  injiuencc  which  their  relation  to  the  Board 
gave  them  to  carry  their  points  per  fas  et  nefas?  That  W.  W. 
was  their  instrument — that  they  could  have  stopped  him  at  once,  I 
infer  from  various  things.  His  statements  are  substantially  the 
same  as  those  of  Dr.  A.  He  had  repeated  intercourse  with  the 
Secretaries,  his  repeated  references  to  information,  which,  if  he 
really  had,  it  must  iiave  come  from  the  Rooms,  and  the  promptness 
with  which  he  did  stop,  and  even  suppress  a  piece,  as  soon  as  a 
wish  to  that  effect  reached  him  from  the  Rooms,  as  the  following 
facts  will  show. 

I  wrote  a  private  note  to  W.  W.,  making  a  third  or  fourth  appli- 
cation for  his  authority  for  statements  made  to  my  disparagement. 
His  reply  bears  date  Dec,  1846.  He  refused  to  give  the  informa- 
tion asked,  but  informed  me  that  another  paper  had  come  out  con- 
taining an  extract  from  my  letters  to  Dr.'  A.,  and  says,  "  I  shall 
fearlessly  encountiir  your  testimony.  My  first  communication  I 
send  you,  the  second  is  yet  unwritten.  I  will  send  you  the  num- 
bers." On  the  28th  Dec.  I  wrote  to  Mr,  Greene,  giving  him  sev- 
eral extracts  from  W.  W.'s  offensive  statements,  and  called  on  him, 
as  a  matter  of  justice  and  equity,  to  let  me  know  whether  W.  W. 
had  any,  and  how  much,  if  any,  authority  from  the  Rooms,  for 
such  statements  ?  Mr.  Greene  answered  my  letter  the  7th  Jan., 
1847,  a  few  days  after  W.  W.'s  letter  was  dated.  He  refused  to 
give  any  answer  to  the  points  put  to  him,  but  remarked,  "In  a  let- 
ter  which  I  had  occasion  to  write  a  few  days  ago,  to  the  person 
who  signs  himself  W.  W.  in  the  Christian  Mirror,  I  remarked  that 
I  could  not  see  that  any  good  was  likely  to  accrue  from  continuing 
ihe  controversy  between  you  and  him.  I  would  repeat  the  remark 
to  you.  1  have  no  evidence  that  your  own  character,  or  that  of 
Mrs.  P.  suffers  from  any  thing  which  W.  W.  has  written,  or  in- 
deed, that  any  body  remembers  or  even  knows  what  he  has  writ- 
ten, whose  knowledge  or  opinion  is  of  the  least  real  consequence 
to  your  usefulness,  or  welfare,  except  so  far  as  your  own  agency 
has  made  it  known  and  remembered."  (Not  very  complimentary 
to  W.  W.) 

So,  then,  however  disparaging  and  slanderous  the  statements, 
and  although  so  made  as  to  carry  the  authority  of  the  Rooms,  and 
made  in  a  'public  print,  widely  circulated  in  New  England,  and 
some  copies  sent  to  foreign  lands,  yet,  as  it  might  not  be  much 
known  in  my  immediate  held  of  labor,  I  must  let  all  pass  !  !  The 
slanderer  may  have  free  access  to  the  Rooms,  receive  information 
notorimislii  false  as  to  the  general  impression  it  makes,  and  so  pub- 
lish it  as  to  create  the  belief  tiiat  it  has  the  authority  of  the  Secre- 
taries, and  when  thoy  are  asked  if  tliey  gave  such  authority,  the 
above  is  the  reply  :  and  this  by  the  Secretaries  of  a  great  religious 
institution,  who,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  have  a  great  and 
wide-spread  power  to  affect  the  character  of  others,  for  good  or  for 


39 


evil-*— to  whitewash  those  who  please  them,  and  to  blacken  those 
who  do  not. 

But  to  return  to  the  point  we  had  before  us.  W.  W.'s  letter, 
announcing  the  attack  on  me,  which  he  was  preparing,  bears  date 
Dec,  1846.  Mr.  Greene's  letter,  notifying  me  that  lie  had  sug- 
gested to  W.  W.  to  stop  the  discussion,  is  dated  7th  Jan.,  1847. 
Not  long  after  this,  I  received  a  number  of  the  Christian  Mirror, 
with  W.  TF.'s  name  on  it.  It  contained  a  short  piece  from  W.  W. 
— but  there  was  no  allusion  in  it  to  me — that  part  of  the  piece  had 
been  suppressed — from  a  pencil-marked  note  in  the  margin,  I 
gathered  that  the  attack  on  me  would  not  come  out. 

How  promptly  W.  W.  followed  the  hint  from  the  Rooms  to  stop. 
Now,  can  any  one  doubt  that  his  former  pieces  were  published  with 
the  consent  of  the  Secretaries  1  He  tells  me  "  it  fell  into  his  un- 
worthy hands."  The  Secretaries  both  speak  doubtfully  about  W. 
W.'s  seeing  papers  at  the  Rooms ;  but  he  is  positive,  that  he  had 
free  access  to  all  he  desired,  and  that  he  spent  most  of  a  week 
there  thus  employed.    Which  are  we  to  believe  ? 

In  answer  to  my  first  private  letter  to  W.  W.,  in  which  I  con- 
fined myself  to  a  simple  and  respectful  application  for  information 
on  points  connected  with  his  published  statements,  while  he  would 
give  me  no  satisfaction,  he  threw  out  this  threat:  "I  speak  advis- 
edly on  all  points  depending  on  testimony.  For  your  own  sake  do 
not  force  me  to  make  public  what  as  yet  is  covered  in  my  own 
desk,  now  beneath  my  sheet.  I  had  too  much  care  for  my  own 
reputation,  not  to  say  for  that  of  others,  and  for  the  truth,  to  publish 
what  truth  did  not  demand,  and  will  not  completely  sustain." 

Three  or  four  times  he  was  urged  to  say  what  it  was  that  he 
kept  back,  and  held  in  terrorem — all  in  vain.  He  would  give  no 
explanation.  This  is  the  man,  who  suppressed  the  information 
which  he  received  from  Wolcott !  This  is  the  defender  of  the  Sec- 
retaries !  This  is  the  man,  that  like  the  Secretaries,  makes  state- 
ments, which  documents  in  their  own  possession  prove  are  not  true, 
and  when  called  on  for  the  proof  of  their  statements  will  not 
answer ! ! 

I  think  that  most  candid  persons  will  say  that  I  have  made  as 
many  applications,  both  to  the  Secretaries  and  others,  who  know 
the  facts  of  the  case,  as  was  proper.  I  had  a  sincere  wish  that 
the  matter  might  be  put  on  such  a  footing  as  would  be  fair,  with- 
out much  public  discussion,  and  without  dwelling  on  some  points 
whici)  would  be  especially  unpleasant.  All  has  been  in  vain.  If 
I  now  make  statements  which  wound  missionaries  and  their  friends, 
I  heg  them  to  recollect  that  the  course  of  the  Secretaries  has  caused 
it.  If  the  Board,  and  the  mission  cause,  as  managed  by  its  pres- 
ent agents,  sutfer,  their  Secretaries  may  be  held  responsible.  Nor 
let  the  real  friends  of  missions  fear  that  all  God's  promises  will 
fail,  all  God's  work  remain  undone,  if  facts  come  out  which  sliake 
confidence  in  the  management  of  the  Secretaries  of  the  A.  B.  C. 
F.  M. 

It  has  been  my  wish  to  pass  lightly  over  the  course  taken  by  the 


23 


missionaries  in  relation  to  myself.  Nor  will  I  now  say  much.  It 
has  been  alledged  by  W.  W.  again  and  again,  after  repeated  in- 
tercourse with  the  Secretaries,  that  the  missionaries  opposed  my 
appointment.  He  specifies  "  Smith  and  others,"  in  his  private  let- 
ters, and  expresses  surprise  that  I  seem  not  to  know  it.  When  the 
case  is  put  to  the  Secretaries  they  refuse  to  answer.  True,  Dr.  A. 
did  give  a  different  account  in  1839,  but  now  when  the  declaration 
is  publicly  made,  and  made  to  disparage  mo,  he  will  not  say  ! 
The  inference  is  a  fair  one,  that  opposition  was  made.  This,  at 
least,  the  public  are  allowed  to  believe,  for  the  Secretaries  will  not 
deny  it.  Who  besides  Mr.  Smith  opposed,  is  not  said,  nor  can  the 
Secretaries  nor  W.  W.  be  brought  to  say.  Did  those  others  belong 
to  the  Syrian  Mission  ?*  Messrs.  Temple  and  Adger  both  wrote 
home  ;  they  were  located  at  Smyrna  and  belonged  to  the  Turkish, 
and  not  the  Syrian  Mission.  Was  it  either  of  them  ?  Wc  are  left 
to  conjecture.  I  know  both  of  them  tried  to  draw  out  my  opinion 
as  to  their  policy — the  sapping  and  mining  policy — and  argued 
against  my  views  when  I  objected  to  their  plan. 

I  here  made  several  remarks.  I  had  through  Goodell  and 
Dwight  an  invitation  to  remain  at  Constantinople  and  join  that  mis- 
sion,  and  I  am  sure  Temple  knew  this,  and  I  doubt  not  Adgcr  did. 
At  the  special  request  of  the  Beirut  station,  I  agreed  to  remain  ttiere, 
and  this  I  feel  sure  was  known  to  the  stations  at  Jerusalem  and 
Cyprus.  My  letter  to  Dwight  stated  this  fact  to  the  brethren  at 
Constantinople,  and  that  letter  was  read  by  the  brethren  in  Smyrna. 
I  gave  my  views  of  mission  policy  by  special  and  written  request. 
It  had  been  several  times  sought,  and  I  was  specially  requested  by, 
at  least,  two  of  the  brethren,  not  to  write  home.  I  supposed  a 
friendly  interchange  of  views  was  wanted.  That  was  what  I  de- 
sired, as  my  letters  show.  I  did  not  know  that  this  policy  had  the 
sanction  of  the  Committee,  until  in  answer  to  my  letters  to  Dwight, 


*NoTE.  Both  Temple  and  Adger,  who  wrote  home  against  my  views  of  mis- 
sion policy,  and  Lanneau,  who  argued  against  ihem  at  the  general  meeting,  Bei- 
rut, 1837,  have  all  left  the  mission  work,  and  returned  home.  So  has  Houston, 
who  advocated  the  same  policy  in  Greece.  Mr.  Smith,  who  was  the  chief  advo- 
cate of  the  "  sapping  and  mining"  policy,  has  been  about  half  his  time,  possibly 
more,  absent  from  his  field.  lie  has  made  three  visits  to  the  United  States,  stay- 
ing nearly  a  year,  or  more,  each  time,  and  of  course  his  passage  between  the  U. 
States  and  Palestine  has  been  paid  seven  times.  Mr.  Thomson,  who  was  for  an 
open,  Scriptural  course,  has  been  at  his  post  from  the  word,  go.  It  is  a  great  thing 
to  have  friends  at  the  Rooms.  Those  brethren  were  receiving  their  support  from 
the  Rooms,  and  knew  I  was  at  my  own  cost.  From  Oct.  183G,  when  I  agreed 
to  remain,  up  to  May,  1838,  I  filled  the  department  assigned  me  to  the  best  of  my 
ability.  I  gave  up  my  correspondence  wilh  a  religious  paper  and  the  compensa- 
tion, in  order  to  do  it.  Mr.  Thomson  assured  Dr.  A.  that  I  aided  in  ail  the  ways 
I  could.  A  person  who  had  the  best  means  of  knowing,  informed  the  Rooms  that 
they  never  knew  any  one  do  more  mission  work  the  first  year.  The  Secretaries 
have  decided  that  I  am  entitled  to  iwtliiiig,  and  have  not  given  me  one  dollar, 
while  they  were  paying  bishop  Carabet  a  salary  at  Beirut,  from  some  time  before 
I  reached  that  place  until  just  before  I  left,  he  doing  nothing — possibly  on  the 
plan  followed  with  the  Nestorian  bij'liops — paying  for  influence.  He  had  been 
employed — his  work  stopped,  but  his  salary  continued. 


24 


Brewer,  and  others,  Mr.  Goodell  sent  me  the  instructions  to 
Stocking,  Holiday  and  Leyburn.  This  sanction  of  the  Commit- 
tee was  all  new  to  me.  My  views  differed  from  that  of  the  ma- 
jority, but  were  the  same  with  some  of  the  most  active  members. 
With  tlie  knowledge,  and  as  I  considered,  the  approbation  of  the 
brethren,  I  offered  my  services  to  the  Board.  As  the  mission  at 
Constantinople,  with  the  knowledge  of  that  at  Smyrna  ;  as  the  sta- 
tion at  Beirut,  with  the  knowledge  of  those  at  Jerusalem  and  Cy- 
prus, had  invited  me  to  stay,  and  not  a  whisper  of  dissent  was  heard 
during  the  time,  nearly  a  whole  year,  I  was  kept  waiting  to  hear 
from  the  Rooms,  and  was  aiding,  to  tlie  best  of  my  ability,  the  mis- 
sion work,  what  are  we  to  think  of  those  brethren  who  would  under- 
handedly  oppose  and  protest  against  my  appointment,  and  conceal 
that  fact  from  me  ?  What  would  be  said  of  such  conduct  in  this 
country  ?  And  are  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  are  sent  to 
preach  the  Gospel  of  purity  and  peace,  and  who  are  supported  by 
the  contributions  of  God's  people,  to  be  tolerated  in  a  course  which 
would  disgrace  a  person  in  any  moral  and  respectable  society  ?  We 
say  it  now  while  we  have  forborne  to  do  it  before,  and  those  hreih- 
ren  affected  may  put  it  to  the  account  of  the  course  of  the  Secreta- 
ries, that  the  conduct  of  Dvviglit  and  Smith,  Temple  and  Adger, 
and  all  who  knew  of  the  mode  taken  to  draw  out  my  opinion,  under 
the  implied  promise  of  not  writing  home,  for  I  had  a  right  to  ex- 
pect a  reciprocity  in  the  matted",  and  then  wrote  home,  reporting  my 
views,  and  sent  protests  it  would  seem,  and  while  the  matter  was 
concealed  from  nie,  such  conduct  ought  to  discredit  any  man,  or 
any  set  of  men. 

I  but  add,  it  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  outworking  of  the  principles 
of  the  policy  they  were  following  as  missionaries.  "  Sapping  and 
mining"  was  the  significant  expression  by  which  its  advocates  used 
to  describe  it;  their  treatment  of  me  was  only  an  application  of 
the  principles  to  my  case,  which  they  were  daily  applying  to  those 
corrupt  churclies.  And  while  the  policy  is  now  professedly  aban- 
doned abroad,  except  perhaps  in  the  mission  to  the  Nestorians,  what 
a  striking  example  we  have  in  this  whole  case,  of  its  present  work- 
ings at  the  Rooms  ! 

Why  was  the  peculiar  policy  followed  in  regard  to  the  Oriental 
churches  so  long  concealed  from  the  churches  at  home  ? 

A  peculiar  organization  called  the  Mediterranean  mission  church 
was  formed  under  Dr.  Anderson's  direction  in  1829,  and  was  to 
embrace  all  the  missions  to  the  Oriental  cliurches.  Its  design  was 
manifestly  to  keep  converts  from  leaving  those  corrupt  churches, 
and  in  accordancy  with  this  plan,  their  mode  of  procedure  was  to 
be  regulated.  Those  superstitions,  which  make  those  churches 
corrupt,  and  those  errors  which  make  them  apostate,  wore  but  in- 
directly to  bo  touched.  Information  was  to  bo  promoted  through 
schools,  and  rnformation  by  preaching  against  personal  sins.  Now 
why  was  tliis  plan  of  workini,'  not  made  known  to  the  churches  at 
home  ?  I  verily  believe  thai  not  one  Christian  in  a  thousand,  who 
raised  the  money  to  support  the  missions,  iiad  any  correct  idea  ot 


25 


it.  I  had  taken  the  Missionary  Herald  from  1814,  but  until  I  saw 
the  plan  at  work  in  the  mission  field,  1  gathered  no  correct  idea 
from  the  dark  glimpses  published  in  the  Herald.  The  mission- 
aries knew  this.  Hence  Goodell,  Dwight,  Temple,  Whiting  and 
Smith,  refer  to  it,  and  I  am  urged  not  to  write  home,  and  told  "  the 
people  at  home  can't  understand  it  as  well  as  those  in  the  tield.  I 
entreat  you  again  not  to  write  home."  Mr.  Temple  tells  me,  "I 
do  not  wonder  at  all,  that  you  entertain  the  views  you  express,  for 
I  presume  they  are  entertained  by  a  large  proportion  of  the  Chris- 
tians, not  to  say  of  the  ministers  in  our  country,  and  I  certainly  en- 
tertained them  substantially  only  ten  years  ago.  Men  like  your- 
self and  me,  who  have  advanced  half  a  century  in  the  career  of 
life,  do  not  easily  change  their  views  on  what  they  regard  impor- 
tant subjects."  Mr.  Temple  had  about  this  time  written  home  his 
account  of  my  views,  and  in  this  last  sentence,  he  alludes,  I  have 
no  doubt,  to  the  true  reason  why  my  age,  (near  5i),)  was  made  so 
great  an  objection.  I  had  given  my  views  pretty  fully,  and  there 
was  not  much  hope  that  I  would  turn  the  somerset  which  he  had 
done  ten  years  before.  While  there  was  hope  in  my  case,  I  was 
invited  to  remain,  first  at  Constantinople,  then  at  Beirut ;  but  when 
I  would  hold  to  the  old,  plain,  open,  common  sense  plan,  I  was 
given  up  as  hopeless  ;  and  according  to  W.  W.,  after  repeated 
conferences  at  the  Rooms,  the  missionaries  thought  and  protested 
to  the  Committee  that  I  ought  not  to  be  appointed  ;  and  all  was 
concealed  from  me,  for  nearly  twelve  months,  much  of  it  until  I 
reached  the  United  States,  and  a  part  of  it  until  lately,  wiien  it 
was  found  convenient  to  use  it,  through  the  agency  of  W.  W.,  to 
destroy  my  character,  if  possible,  and  prevent  my  statement  of 
mission  policy  from  being  believed  ! 

1  do  not  believe  that  one  in  a  thousand  of  church  members  did 
then,  or  do  now,  understand  the  true  nature  of  the  plan  followed. 
I  do  not  believe  that  one  in  twenty  of  the  corporate  and  honorary 
members  of  the  Board  fully  understand  how  the  matter  has  been 
managed  ;  and  I  give  as  a  reason  for  this  opinion,  they  could  not 
learn  it  from  the  publications  of  the  Herald.  It  does  not  give  a 
full  account — it  is  partial,  and  at  times  notoriously  unfair.  Where 
does  it  clearly  indicate  the  change  of  policy  made  in  1829,  from 
the  open,  aggressive  plan,  to  what  Goodell  and  Temple  called  the 
"sapping  and  mining"  policy?  Where  docs  it  state  the  facts 
about  ceasing  to  print,  and  almost  ceasing  to  circulate,  while  there 
were  many  still  on  hand,  every  book  that  pointed  out  any  of  the 
prevalent  superstitions  and  fatal  errors  of  those  churches  ?  Where 
will  you  find  in  the  Herald  such  notices  of  the  plan  of  working  as 
Mr.  Goodell  gives  in  a  letter,  dated  Feb.  25,  18:12  :  "  I  have  not, 
myself,  given  away  a  single  book,  in  or  out  of  school,  wliicli  I  sup- 
posed would  give  the  least  offense  to  the  tireeks,  an<l  I  enjoined  it 
upon  the  teachers  to  pursue  the  same  prudent  criur>e.  I  had  an 
interview  with  the  Greek  Patriarch,  before  I  received  your  letter, 
anrl  requested  him  to  throw  out  of  those  books  which  wo  were 
using  in  the  schools,  any  thing  which  he  had  any  objection  to, 

4 


26 


which  he  readily  engaged  to  do,  and  is  now  examining  them  for 
the  purpose,  I  thank  you  for  mentioning  your  Greek  bishop's  re- 
port, as  it  will  put  me  more  on  my  guard  in  regard  to  his  opera- 
tions here,  though  I  have  all  along  been  particularly  careful,  de-- 
terinining  that  all  other  interests  should  be  sacrificed  for  those  of 
the  schools."*  Here  we  have  a  Greek  censorship  submitted  to,  as 
to  all  books  used  in  the  schools,  and  the  projwsal  comes  from  the 
missionary. 

Where  will  you  find  an  account  of  the  resolution  of  the  Syrian 
mission,  acted  on  for  years,  not  to  circulate  Mr.  Bird's  book,  al- 
thougli  it  had  been  prepared  with  great  care,  and  printed  at  Malta, 
at  a  cost  of  from  $400  to  $600  ;  or  any  other  book  touching  the 
errors  of  those  churciies,  unless  in  very  special  cases? 

I  venture  the  opinion  that  the  Prudential  Committee  ?<5e/f  did  not 
fully  understand  the  extent  to  which  tliat  policy  was  followed,  and 
do  not  understand  it  now.  Among  a  good  many  reasons  which  I 
have  for  this  opinion,  I  give  the  following :  I  know  from  Dr.  A.'s 
own  statement  that  the  Committee  does  not  see  all  the  papers  that 
come  to  the  Rooms,  and  that  important  papers  discussing  the  "sap- 
ping and  mining"  policy,  have  not  been  shown  them.  The  fullest 
discussion  of  it  that  has  taken  place,  was  kept  back  from  them, 
except  some  short  extracts  which  were  published,  and  those  all  on 
one  side. 

Again,  we  have  an  account  of  the  meeting  at  Smyrna,  April, 
1838,  at  which  the  subject  of  mission  policy  is  represented  as  con- 
sidered. This  account  is  used  as  an  introduction  to  the  extracts 
from  Adger,  Temple,  and  Smith,  all  put  in  the  best  form  possible 
at  the  Rooms,  and  positively  altered  in  several  respects  to  give  more 
effect,  and  keep  out  of  view  the  fact  that  all  these  extracts  be- 
longed to  a  desperate  defense  of  their  policy,  against  arguments  I 
had  brought  to  bear  against  it.  There  are  in  this  account  several 
statements  calculated,  if  not  designed,  to  deceive.  On  page  117, 
April  Herald,  1838,  after  referring  to  the  (Hscussions  among  the 
missionaries  of  the  Board,  it  is  said,  "  In  regard  to  the  Scriptural 
and  proper  method  of  procedure,  they  seem  to  have  been  of  one 
mind."  Now  the  Secretaries  must  have  known  that  this  was  not 
the  fact.  There  was,  there  had  been  all  along,  a  diversity  of  views, 
and  a  pretty  decided  opposition  by  some  to  the  "  sapping  and  min- 
ing" plan,  which  the  majority  favored.  Secretary  Armstrong  ad- 
mitted directly  to  me  that  "tliey  knew"  Mr.  Thomson's  views 
agreed  with  mine.  They  could  hardly  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that 
others  agreed  with  Thomson.  Again,  in  the  account  of  Mr. 
Smith's  manner  of  preaching,  as  I  have  already  sliown,  they  have 
wholly  altered  the  sense,  i)y  leaving  out  the  qualifying  clause.  A 
highly  intelligent  layman,  to  whom  1  showed  the  statrmont  in  the 
Herald,  and  that  in  the  letter,  said  at  once  that  in  tiie  Herald  it 
was  false. 

Again,  in  making  the  Committee  recommend  Mr.  Smith's  late 


*  NoTB.   See  Syracuse  Recorder,  Sept.  3,  1646,  whence  this  extract  is  taken. 


27 


statement,  that  ihe  Syrian  Mission,  all  along,  both  in  preaching  and 
in  the  books  published,  have  followed  an  "  aggressive  policy,"  they 
make  xhem  sanction  what  the  Secretaries  must  know  was  not  true. 
They  must  know  that  there  has  been  a  change  from  the  open,  and 
plain  method,  to  the  ••  sapping  and  mining,''  and  then  back  again. 

Now  in  these  several  cases  I  am  slow  to  believe  that  men  of 
the  standing  the  Prudential  Committee  are  said  to  have,  would,  if 
they  knew  the  real  state  of  the  case,  give  their  sanction  to  what  is 
not  true.  The  more  charitable  opinion  is,  that  they  have  not  so 
made  themselves  masters  of  the  case,  as  to  see  the  error  thev  are 
made  to  endorse.  Thev""  trust  to  the  Secretaries  ;  and  the  Secre- 
taries  do  not  put  thera  in  possession  of  all  the  facts  of  the  case. 
Not  to  admit  this  is  to  shut  ourselves  up  to  the  necessity  of  believ- 
ing  that  the  Committee  have  concurred  with  the  Secretaries  in 
putting  out  statements  which  are  not  true,  and  which  they  know 
are  not  true,  and  which  deceive  the  churches.  It  is  not  easv  to 
stretch  the  mantle  of  charity  so  as  to  cover  the  Secretaries.  They 
must  know  that  *'  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,''  has  not  been  told  ;  that  a  fair  and  truthful  impression  has 
not  been  made. 

After  most  of  the  above  was  written.  I  received  some  informa- 
tion, which  I  may  here  insert.  On  receiving  information  from  Mr. 
Greene,  that  my  appeal  from  the  Secretaries  to  the  Prudential  Com- 
mittee was  read  to  them,  and  that  while  they  refused  to  take  up 
the  case,  or  read  the  letters  therein  referred  to.  they  had  still  de- 
clared that  it  was  not  "  seen  that  any  injustice  had  been  done  me 
by  any  one  connected  with  the  Rooms,"  it  struck  me  as  most  sin- 
gular conduct.  I  could  reconcile  it  neither  with  their  reported 
character,  nor  with  their  regard  to  duty,  as  the  depository  of  exe- 
cutive power.  A  suspicion  arose  in  my  mind,  as  it  did  in  that  of 
others,  that  either  the  matter  had  not  at  ail  come  before  them,  or 
come  in  such  form  as  prevented  it  from  being  understood.  How 
to  ascertain  this  fact  was  not  obvious.  I  had  ample  evidence  of 
the  disposition  of  the  Secretaries  to  refuse  information.  Months 
passed,  and  no  mode  seemed  to  otfer.  We  had  tried  several  gen- 
tlemen, who  were  suppose(f  to  have  influence  at  the  Rooms  ;  all 
declined  giving  any  aid.  At  length  we  received  a  friendly  letter 
from  a  gentleman,  who  had  heard  something  of  our  case.  At  our 
request  he  called  at  the  Rooms  and  made  inquiries  on  several 
points  ;  among  others  desired  the  names  of  those  members  of  the 
Prudential  Committee  to  whom  my  appeal  was  read,  July  20th, 
1847,  as  reported  by  Mr.  Greene.  Their  names  were  refused. 
Now  why  this,  if  all  was  fair  and  honest  ?  Am  I  not  justified  in 
the  belief  that  it  never  came  properly  before  the  Committee,  so  as 
to  be  understood  ? 

As  the  existence  of  the  mission  church  had  been  denied  bv  W. 
W.  who  gave  the  Secretaries  as  his  authority,  I  requested  our 
friend  to  see  those  reports  of  the  meetings  above  referred  to,  and 
take  copies  of  such  portions  as  related  to  the  mission  church. 
This  was  refused.    The  Secretaries  said,  in  etTect,  that  it  was  not 


28 


known  whether  there  were  such  reports,  or  where  they  were,  if 
there  were  any  ;  and  that  it  was  not  known  what  they  contained. 
Here  again — W.  W.  has  free  access,  and  gains,  or  pretends  to  gain, 
information,  which  he  uses  to  disparage  my  character;  and  when 
application  is  made  to  the  Rooms  for  information  to  show  its  want 
of  truth,  that  information  is  refused. 

Our  friend  gained  at  the  same  time,  other  information,  which 
had  before  been  withheld,  although  applied  for  repeatedly.  It  was 
admitted  that  "  no  protests,"  or  "  remonstrances,"  came  from  the 
missionaries.  W.  W.'s  statement,  therefore,  although  repeated 
again  and  again,  and  after  visits  to  the  Rooms,  is  at  least  contra- 
dicted by  the  Secretaries.  Which  now  is  to  be  believed  ?  And 
why  could  not  this  statement  have  been  given  while  W.  W.'s  state- 
ment was  before  the  public,  and  that  for  the  avowed  purpose  of 
discrediting  my  statement  ?  Are  we  to  believe  that  the  object  was 
to  let  his  assertions  have  their  designed  effect,  until  the  whole  mat- 
ter would  pass  from  the  public  mind  ? 

The  want  of  a  recommendation  from  the  mission,  was  spoken  of 
to  our  friend,  as  greatl)"  against  my  application,  and  as  equivalent 
to  a  remonstrance  jN'ow  1  know  that  Dr.  A.  was  informed  that  it 
was  not  known  to  be  needed — and  /  know  also  that  while  in  his  let- 
ter to  me,  and  also  in  that  to  the  mission,  he  spoke  of  this  rule  re- 
quiring it,  he  so  staled  the  case  as  to  make  the  impression  that  the 
matter  was  now  settled.  I  had  "  waited  only  to  be  disappointed." 
Most  assuredly  I  was  given  to  understand  that  the  members  of  the 
mission  drew  the  inference  from  Dr.  A.'s  letter,  that  he  did  not 
wish  them  to  send  a  recommendation.  I  inferred  this  from  his  letter 
to  me,  and  when  I  saw  his  letter  to  the  mission  I  did  not  doubt  that 
their  inference  was  correct.  Some  other  reasons  were  put  for- 
ward, which  seeined  to  hide  the  true  one,  but  I  believe  that  Dr. 
Anderson  knows  before  God  that  they  were  not  the  true  ones. 
Rev.  J.  Bird  frankly  gave  the  true  one  to  my  friends.  My  "  views 
of  mission  policy,"  and  in  a  few  days  after  seeing  them,  I  saw  Rev. 
Dr.  Armstrong,  and  he,  as  I  understood  him,  distinctly  admitted 
that  my  views  of  mission  policy,  my  opposition  to  the  sapping  and 
mining  system,  was  the  true  reason.  Now  why  all  this  shuffling, 
and  trickery,  and  double-dealing,  and  putting  out  false  reasons? 
While  conversing  on  this  matter  with  our  friend,  Dr.  A.  alluded  to 
a  letter,  received  about  the  time  my  offer  of  service  was  made, 
which  contained  "  a  phrase,"  as  he  said,  which  was  considered  as 
opposed  to  my  receiving  an  appointment,  and  said  a  following  let- 
ter stated  that  said  inference  was  correct.  When  requested,  he 
brought  forward  the  letter,  but  would  not  permit  our  friend  to  read 
it,  nor  give  the  name  of  the  writer.  Nor  was  the  "  phrase"  given. 
Now  what  on  earth  might  not  be  proved  in  that  way  '?  Why  thus 
conceal,  if  there  was  truth  in  the  matter? 

I  suppose  that  I  can  explain  the  affair;  and  the  state  of  the  case, 
I  think,  makes  it  proper  I  should  do  so.  Dr.  A.  said  it  was  not 
Mr.  Smith,  and  I  doubt  not  it  was  Mr.  Thomson.  W'hen  about  to 
write  to  the  lioard,  and  make  an  offer  of  my  service,  I  mentioned 


39 


it  to  him,  and  from  what  passed,  I  believed  I  bad  bis  and  the  mis- 
sion's cordial  concurrence.  A  letter  of  his  accompanied  mine  to 
the  Rooms.  To  this  letter  Dr.  A.  refers  in  his  to  me,  and  also  in 
his  letter  to  the  mission,  in  a  way  that  made  Thomson  feel  unpleas- 
ant! v,  and  drew  from  him  a  kind  of  explanatory  letter  to  me,  from 
which  I  make  this  extract.  '•  Dear  Brother,  I  did  not  know  of  the 
existence  of  any  such  rule  as  he,  (Mr.  A.)  memions  in  regard  to 
the  necessity  of  a  regular  recommendation  by  the  mission.  I 
never  heard  of  the  rule  until  I  saw  it  in  this  letter  ;  nor  did  it  oc- 
cur to  me  that  it  was  necessary  in  your  case.  He  says  he  could 
not  make  out  whether  I  was  in  favor  of  your  appointment  or  not. 
I  am  sorry  I  have  not  a  copy  of  my  letter ;  I  have,  however,  a 
very  distinct  recollection  of  all  1  wrote.  I  said  very  little,  and  for 
this  plain  reason,  that  it  never  occurred  to  me  that  there  was  any 
doubt  of  your  appointment,  nor  did  such  a  thought  arise  in  my 
mind,  until  after  I  heard  of  the  severe  pecuniary  distress  of  the 
Board.  I  stated  that  it  seemed  preposterous  for  me  to  recommend 
you  to  them,  for  they  were  better  acquainted  with  you  than  1  was. 
1  also  knew  that  you  had  a  oerscnal  interview  with  some  of  them 
before  you  left  America.  The  only  point  on  which  I  thought  in- 
formation important,  was  that  of  the  language ;  and  I  stated  that 
you  were  very  diligent  and  laborious  in  studying  Arabic  and  Ital- 
ian. This  explanation,  I  feel  has  been  called  for,  by  the  terras  of 
Mr.  Anderson's  letter." 

All  will,  I  think,  agree  that  in  the  above  letter  Mr.  T.  intended 
I  should  believe  that  he  bad  been  and  was  in  favor  of  my  appoint- 
ment. 

Shortly  afterwards  he  forwarded  to  us  the  following : 

"  October  ^0,  1537. 

"  Deak  BaoTHEK  Paito!*. — The  following  is  a  copy  verbatim  of 
what  I  have  this  day  written  to  Mr.  Anderson  in  reference  to  your 
case : 

'You  (Mr.  Anderson)  would  doubtless  think  it  strange  should  I 
close  my  letter  without  making  any  reference  to  the  case  of  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Paxton.  We  thought  it  singular  that  your  leitter  to  us 
contained  nothing  io  regard  to  Mr.  P.,  who  has  so  long  been  con- 
nected with  us  in  labors  and  sulFe rings.  When  I  wrote  the  letter 
to  which  reference  is  made  in  your  answer  to  Mr.  P.,  I  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  rule  requiring  the  mission  to  recommend  in  such 
cases,  nor  do  I  now  know  where  such  a  rule  is  to  be  found.*  I 
could  have  wished  that  my  name  had  not  been  introduced  in  the 
way  it  was  in  your  reply. 

'  Mr.  P.  requested  me  to  mention  to  you,  when  I  wrote,  that  his 
residence  in  this  country  had  not  been  at  the  expense  of  the  Board  ; 
1  have  previously  in  my  letters  mentioned  that  Mr.  P.  had  cheer- 
fully rendered  us  every  assistance  in  his  power,  especially  io  con- 

*  Dr.  A.  sabeeqaeDtly  infonned  me  that  be  spoke  of  wiage  as  the  rule  ;  bat  no 
ca^e  constitnting  the  usa^  was  giren.  Compare  this  with  .Misp.  Herald,  page 
364,  1839,  where  the  Commitiee  say.  "  Ii  is  the  peculiar  prerogTaiire  of  arbitrary 
and  despotic  power  to  keep  its  laws  andefined,  anwniten,  and  tmpnbliahed." 


30 


ducting  the  English  service,  both  on  the  Sabbath  and  on  week 
days. 

'The  question  has  arisen  among  us,  whether  Mrs.  P.,  by  mar- 
rying out  of  liie  mission,  iias  ceased  to  be  one  of  its  members  or 
not.  Some  thinic  there  is  a  rule  on  the  subject,  but  I  know  not 
where  it  is.  I  do  not  ask  the  question  because  we  have  any  prac- 
tical difficulty  on  tiie  subject,  but  if  there  be  a  rule  it  is  important 
tiiat  we  know  it. 

'Mrs.  P.  requested  that  notliing  should  be  written  to  the  Rooms 
about  her  case  by  any  one  except  herself;  but  I  could  not,  with 
my  views  of  what  was  proper  respect  to  the  Secretaries,  pass  the 
subject  entirely  over.'"  " 

The  last  paragraph  was  to  me,  and  refers  to  a  request  Mrs.  P. 
made,  that  as  Dr.  A.  liad  not  mentioned  her  case,  and,  as  he  said, 
he  could  not  "  make  out"  Mr.  Thomson's  meaning  in  regard  to 
myself,  it  might  be  left  to  her  to  make  inquiries  at  the  Rooms  re- 
spectmg  her  own  case.  As  her  request  was  not  granted,  she 
waited  the  result  of  tlie  inquiries  made  by  the  mission.  About 
the  middle  of  April,  nearly  six  months  afterwards,  we  received  a 
packet  of  newspapers  from  the  Rooms,  which  contained  extracts 
of  the  minutes  of  the  general  meeting  of  the  Board,  Sept.,  1837, 
and  found  Mrs.  P.'s  name  dropped  from  the  list  of  missionaries. 
(See  Christian  Mirror,  Sept.  28,  1837,  Evangelist,  Sept.  23,  N.  Y. 
Observer  do.)  No  letter  came  to  us,  nor  did  we  receive  any  notice 
that  special  information  on  her  case  had  come  to  the  mission,  until 
about  a  month  later.  The  reason  assigned  for  not  informing 
us  sooner,  was  that  the  mission  was  not  requested  to  impart  the  in- 
formation to  us  that  Mrs.  P.  was  no  longer  regarded  as  connected 
with  the  mission — that  it  was  thought  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Secre- 
taries, and  it  was  not  doubted  but  that  they  had,  or  would  do  it  in 
their  own  time  and  way. 

Supposing  the  erasure  of  Mrs.  P.'s  name  in  the  papers  sent  us, 
was  designed  to  be  our  notice,  we  began  our  preparations  for  a  re- 
turn to  the  U.  States,  and  as  soon  as  we  could  get  ready,  and  pro- 
cure a  passage,  we  left  Palestine. 

The  above  two  letters,  I  doubt  not,  are  the  two  letters  to  which 
Dr.  A.  referred  in  his  conversation  with  our  friend,  but  refused  to 
let  him  read,  or  even  to  know  the  writer's  name.  Why  Mr.  Thom- 
son, after  referring  to  the  subject,  said  so  little  in  his  last  letter, 
may  possibly  surprise,  after  reading  his  apology  to  me  for  the  am- 
biguity of  the  first.  It  certainly  surprised  me  when  I  received  it. 
I  thought  tlie  case  needed  explanation,  and  wrote  a  note  to  Mr.  T., 
from  which  the  following  is  taken. 

Nov.  4th,  1837. 
Brother  Thomson, — I  feel  sure  that  you  did  not  intend  that  the 
extract  of  your  letter  sent  me  should  have  caused  us  as  much  pain 
as  it  has,  and  yet  I  know  not  how  you  could  write,  co|)y  and  send  it, 
without  seeing  that  it  must  renew  and  deepen  our  unpleasant  feel- 
ings. After  tliinking  on  the  matter,  I  have  thought  that  the  most 
brotherly  course  on  my  part  was  frankly  to  let  you  know  it,  and 
thus  give  room  for  any  explanation  you  may  wish  to  give.  Possi- 


31 


bly  you  have  reasons  which  justify  you,  and  possibly  you  did  not 
happen  to  take  the  view  of  the  matter  which  it  is  natural  for  us 
to  take. 

"  Your  letter  relative  to  us,  seems  to  me  to  do,  on  the  main  points, 
precisely  the  reverse  of  what  the  state  of  the  case  called  for. 

"  As  regards  Mrs.  P.,  she  had  a  decided  preference  that  it  might 
be  left  to  her  to  write  to  the  Rooms  on  her  own  case.  The  Com- 
mittee had  not  touched  her  case  in  their  letters.  Why  could  not 
her  request  be  granted  ?  Why  so  urgent  to  have  the  Committee 
act  on  it,  and  that  without  one  intimation  in  your  letter  that  she 
might  still  be  useful,  or  that  the  members  of  the  mission  or  station 
would  be  pleased  to  have  her  remain,  or  any  reference  to  her  de- 
sire still  to  labor  in  that  cause  to  which,  at  a  greater  sacrifice  of 
early  and  relative  ties  than  perhaps  any  of  the  Syrian  Mission, 
she  had  devoted  herself?  How  ai'e  we  to  understand  this,  brother 
Thomson  ?  You  might  have  spared  us  this  second  trial.  You  are 
the  last  person  in  the  whole  mission  that  1  would  have  expected 
such  a  thing  from.  I  have  felt  this  last  matter  more  than  I  did  the 
answer  from  the  Committee. 

"As  regards  myself,  the  very  thing  which  the  Committee  wished 
to  know — the  thing  which  Mr.  Anderson  dwells  on,  even  to  your 
annoyance — the  expression  of  an  opinion  as  to  my  appointment — 
is  passed  over  without  one  solitary  word.  Mr.  A.  and  the  Com- 
mittee will  be  precisely  where  they  were,  except  as  they  make  in- 
ferences from  your  silence  ;  and  those  inferences  must,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  be  wholly  against  me. 

You  are  mistaken,  if  you  think  that  I  am  trying  to  get  an  ex- 
pression from  you,  the  station,  or  mission,  as  may  enable  me  to  apply 
again  with  more  success; — I  have  decided  not  to  apply  again.  I 
decided  this  soon  after  I  received  Mr.  A.'s  letter,  and  wrote  home 
to  that  effect.  So  far  as  I  have  plans,  they  look  to  another  quar- 
ter. But  1  am  not  yet  decided  as  to  what  I  shall  do,  nor  can  1  be 
until  I  hear  from  my  agent.  Posiibly  I  may  leave  as  soon  as  my 
pecuniary  matters  will  admit. 

"  I  have  to  request  you  and  Mr.  Hebard  to  give  me  a  frank  and 
full  statement  of  your  views  and  feelings  in  respect  to  those  points 
in  which  I  suspect  I  have  been  unfairly  represented  to  the  Com- 
mittee. Such  as  my  views  respecting  the  mode  of  conducting  mis- 
sionary operations,  and  especially  whether  I  have  urged  them  im- 
properly as  to  time  and  manner — my  influence  on  the  harmony  of 
the  mission — the  general  character  of  my  intercourse  with  the  mis- 
sion— and  whether  you  felt  cordial  towards  mo  as  a  oo- worker,  &c. 

"And  let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  if  you  feel  any  hesi- 
tancy as  to  my  age,  you  nerd  have  no  delicacy  in  saying  so.  I 
feel  satisfied  tliat  if  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  I  was  not  ap- 
pointed because  it  was  tliought  that  at  my  ago  (near  TiO)  I  might 
do  more  to  promote  the  cause  of  Christ  in  my  own  language  than 
to  try  to  gain  the  Arabic,  I  would  lose  nothing  in  the  eyes  of 
tiic  pious  and  judicious.  Age  is  honorabUi  if  found  in  the  way 
of  righteousness.    Dr.  Reed,  with  whom  I  went  to  London,  told 


32 


me  before  I  left  him  that  he  thought  of  going  to  India  as  a 
missionary.  He  was  about  my  age.  He  afterwards  did  offer  him- 
self, but  was  not  sent  out,  because  it  was  thought,  as  I  learned,  that 
at  his  time  of  life  he  might  be  more  useful  in  Englar  d.  How  he 
felt  I  know  not,  but  his  character  did  not  suffer  for  his  zeal  in  the 
mission  cause. 

"  No  brother  need  fear  that  he  will  lose  my  good  opinion  by  a 
frank  statement  of  his  opinion  ;  but  I  do  feel  hurt  at  a  silence  which 
will  bear  any  evil  construction.  It  is  to  my  feelings  ten  times  more 
wounding  than  any  thing  that  any  of  you  can  have  to  object 
against  me.  I  perhaps  would  not  feel  the  matter  so  much  but  for 
a  reason  of  which  you  know.  I  know  that  Mr.  Temple  wrote 
home,  and  very  probably  Mr.  Smith  did.  Mr.  Temple's  letter,  as 
he  admits,  was  read  to  Mr.  Smith,  and  Mr.  S.  wrote  to  me  about 
the  same  time.  His  letter,  as  you  may  recollect,  exhibits  much 
feeling,  and  virtually  contains  a  pretty  heavy  charge  of  introdu- 
cing divisions  and  alienation,  and  changing  the  course  and  pros- 
pects of  the  mission.*  Now  from  this  letter  I  think  I  may  infer 
what  he  wrote  home,  if  he  did  write,  and  also  in  part,  what  was 
the  character  of  the  letter  Mr.  Temple  read  to  him. 

"  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  I  think  there  were  reasons  operating  on 
the  Committee  that  do  not  appear.  The  rule  they  refer  to  is  pro- 
per for  residents.  I  was,  however,  but  waiting  to  get  an  answer  ; 
and  why  take  months  to  decide  a  case  if  already  decided  by  a  plain 
rule  ?    I  especially  requested  a  speedy  answer." 

Mr.  Thomson  called  and  made  a  verbal  explanation,  the  amount 
of  which  was,  that  while  Mr.  A.'s  letter  referred  to  a  rule  requir- 
ing a  recommendation,  the  whole  statement  of  the  case,  the  allu- 
sion to  the  matter  as  now  settled,  I  had  "waited  only  to  be  disap- 
pointed," the  utter  absence  of  any  intimation  that  the  needful  steps 
could  yet  be  taken,  all  led  to  the  inference  that  a  recommendation 
was  not  wanted  ;  and  as  I  had  decided  not  to  apply  again,  the  whole 
matter  was  passed  over.  He  showed  me  Mr.  A.'s  letter  to  the 
mission,  which  up  to  that  time  I  had  not  seen,  and  also  the  opinion 
of  the  Jerusalem  station  on  it,  atrreeins  with  what  he  had  inferred 
— that  no  action  of  the  mission  was  asked  or  desired.  The  same 
statement  in  substance  was  made  to  Mrs.  P.  by  Mr.  Thomson  and 
by  Mrs.  Hebard. 

1  did  desire  a  statement  as  to  the  general  facts  of  the  case,  as 
my  letter  above  shows,  and  I  once  certainly  thought  Mr.  Thomson 
promised  to  give  it ;  but  it  never  came  to  hand.  The  reason  why 
it  did  not,  I  do  not  pretend  certainly  to  know.  I  have,  however,  had 
a  pretty  decided  opinion.  Mr.  Thomson  held  the  same  views  of 
mission  policy  that  I  did,  and  I  know  that  he  spoke  much  more 
frequently  and  in  much  stronger  terms  of  disapprobation  of  it  than 
I  did.  He  took  the  lead  against  it  at  the  general  meeting,  and  was 
the  main  cause  of  the  passage  of  a  resolution,  referred  to  by  Lan- 
neau,  to  dissolve  the  mission  church,    lie  knew  the  grounds,  on 


•  See  Appenduc — Note  B. 


S3 


which  I  believed  that  my  views,  as  reported  at  the  Rooms,  were 
the  cause  of  niy  not  receiving  an  appointment,  and  he  knew  the 
unkind  feelings  of  Smith  towards  him  on  account  of  his  opposing 
the  prevalent  policy  ;  and  he  knew  that  a  message  from  the  Rooms 
could  easily  call  him  home.  Wl)o  ihat  knows  human  nature  will 
wonder  that  he  should,  in  such  a  state  of  things,  wish  not  to  stand 
too  prominently  on  my  side,  or  on  the  side  of  a  policy  which  found 
no  favor  at  the  Rooms  ! 

I  know  that  Mr.  Thomson  about  this  time  told  me  more  than  once 
that  he  thousrht  it  very  uncertain  whether  he  would  be  allowed  to 
remain  long  at  Beirut.  In  a  letter  which  overtook  me  in  Alexan- 
dria, he  thus  remarks : 

"  I  see  myself  left  by  the  departure  of  sister  P.,  the  only  remnant 
of  the  reinforcement  of  this  mission  which  came  out  with  me.  j 
need  not  say  how  and  where  they  have  gone  ;  but  the  reflection  often 
returns,  that  I  shall  soon  follow  them,  either  to  ;he  narrow  house, 
or  across  the  wide  ocean.  This  has  always  aliected  my  m!nd  to  the 
deepest  solemnity,  when  I  have  allowed  my  mind  to  dwell  upon  it. 
Then,  I  have  lost  friends.  Whether  my  conduct  has  been  such  as 
to  leave  a  contrary  impression  on  your  minds,  I  can  scarcely  tell. 
One  thing  1  know,  and  that  is,  that  your  departure  has  made  a  gap 
in  the  list  of  my  friends  which  none  in  Syria  can  fill ;  and  the  num- 
ber of  tried  friends  is  by  no  means  so  large  that  we  can  lose  them 
without  feeling  the  wound  deeply." 

Here  he  refers  to  his  apprehensions  that  he  would  have  to  cross 
the  wide  ocean, — that  none  in  Syria  could  fill  our  place.  We  alone 
had  stood  firmly  by  him  in  his  advocacy  of  a  plain,  open,  scriptural 
plan  of  operation.  We  were  struck  down  and  removed  from  the 
field — what  would  be  his  fate  ?  I  do  not  much  wonder  that  he  should 
have  drawn  back  from  a  more  open  opposition  to  what  seemed  to  be 
the  determination  of  the  Committee,  and  the  triumph  of  Mr.  Smith 
and  his  sapping  and  mining  policy. 

I  have  little  doubt  that  I  had  up  to  the  last,  the  cordial  good  will, 
both  of  Mr.  Thomson  and  Hebard,  and  their  desire  that  I  should  re- 
main ;  if  not,  they  must  liave  acted  with  much  duplicity.  For,  I 
affirm  that  Mr.  Tlioinson,  after  my  offer  of  services  was  not  accepted, 
repeatedly  proposed  p/ans  by  which  I  might  still  remain  and  assist, 
although  not  connected  with  the  Board.  The  same  thing  was  men- 
tioned to  Mrs.  P.,  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hebard.  A  strong  desire  that 
we  should  remain  was  expressed,  but  the  written  statement  of  the 
facts,  whicij  I  desired,  was  never  given. 

Rev.  Mr.  Ladd,  of  whom  I  asked,  not  a  recommendation,  for  I 
did  not  want  that,  but  a  statement  on  the  points  on  which  I  believed 
injustice  had  been  done  me,  by  those  breiiiren  who  had  written  to 
the  Rooms,  replied  in  a  note,  Nov.  2,  1837  : 

"  As  you  wislied  me  to  tell  you  frankly  what  my  opinion  is,  as 
to  what  has  been  the  character  of  your  intercourse  with  the  mission- 
ary bretliren  here,  with  reference  to  its  tendency  to  promote  peace 
and  brotherly  love  among  brethren,  I  will  freely  say,  tiiat  having 
now  resided  here  more  than  eiglit  months,  and  having  had  good  op- 
portunity during  that  time,  to  form  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  1  do 

5 


34 


not  think  that  your  conduct  has  in  any  way  been  calculated  to  dis- 
turb the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  missionary  circle,  or  in  any  re- 
spect do  injury  to  those  kind  and  fraternal  feelings  which  ought  to 
exist  among  the  missionaries  here.  It  is  true  that  at  our  general 
meeting  last  spring,  when  you  were  requested  to  sit  with  us  and 
taite  part  in  our  discussions,  you,  as  well  as  others  present,  expressed 
some  views  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  conducting  missions,  in  which 
some  of  the  brethren  did  not  coincide,  but  during  the  discussion 
nothing  was  said  or  done  on  your  part,  tliat  1  am  aware  of,  which 
was  either  offensive  or  improper,  or  impolite,  or  adapted  to  alienate 
the  feelings  of  brethren  ;  and  further,  I  have  never  known  you  to 
be  fond  of  urging  tiie  above  mentioned  views  upon  the  brethren  or 
others,  nor  have  I  known  you  frequently  referring  to  them,  or  men- 
tioning them  in  any  way.  In  short,  I  believe  your  conduct,  since 
my  residence  here,  and  before,  as  far  as  I  know^  has  been  such  in 
reference  to  tlie  point  in  question,  and  in  ail  other  respects,  as  is  be- 
coming a  missionary  ;  and  I  never  heard  any  of  the  missionary  cir- 
cle here,  or  any  others,  express  a  ditferent  opinion. 

Yours  in  Christian  love,  DANIEL  LADD." 

We  may  here  specify  several  things  and  call  attention  to  them. 
The  Secretaries  and  Prudential  Committee  are  the  agents  of  a  great 
religious  institution  whose  object  is  to  spread  the  gospel.  Is  it  proper 
that  these  agents  adopt  and  follow  a  policy,  which  lor  years  is  kept 
concealed  from  those  who  employ  them  ;  a  policy  which  those  agents 
must  know  would  not  meet  the  approbation  of  the  great  body  of  their 
employers  ?  Who  that  knows  the  facts  of  the  case  can  deny  that 
this  has  been  done  ? 

Is  it  right  for  missionaries  who  are  sent  out  and  supported  by  the 
churches,  to  adopt  a  policy,  which  they  know  would  not  be  approved 
by  those  who  sup[)orted  them  ?  Is  it  right  to  use  means  to  keep 
this  fact  from  the  knowledge  of  the  churches  and  urjie  it  on  those 
who  know  the  facts,  not  to  let  it  be  known  ?  Is  not  ihis  a  kind  of 
deception  practiced  upon  the  churches  ? 

Is  it  honest  and  becoming  for  missionaries  and  secretaries  to  draw 
out  the  opinion  respecting  their  policy  from  tliose  who  may  visit  tlie 
mission  field,  and  this  without  letting  their  object  be  known,  and  then 
privately  report  it  and  use  underhand  means  to  keep  from  the  field 
those  who  cannot  be  induced  to  fall  in  with  their  policy,  and  assign 
reasons  other  than  the  true  ones  for  such  a  course  ?  Is  not  this 
Jesuitical  ? 

Is  it  allowable  for  the  Secretaries  to  use  the  great  power  whicii 
their  relation  to  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  and  their  liaving  several  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  annually  to  disburse,  gives  them,  to  assail, 
and  to  try  to  put  down,  any  who  may  slate  facts  which  they  know 
are  true,  but  which  the  Secretaries  have,  eitiier  wholly  or  in  part, 
kept  from  the  churches  ?  May  they  put  out  statemeiUs  which  they 
know  make  a  false  impression  ?  suppress,  or  alter  documents,  give 
free  access  to  the  Rooms  and  documents  to  persons,  whose  object 
appears  to  be,  to  defend  the  policy  of  the  Secretaries  and  assail,  j^er 
fas  el  nefas,  all  who  depart  from  it,  while  information  is  refused  to 
those  assailed,  which  is  known  to  be  in  the  Rooms,  and  would  dis- 
prove the  calumny  ? 


35 


Is  it  honest,  when  a  mission  policy  not  fully  known  to  the  churches, 
has  been  followed  for  years,  and  then  changed  for  a  more  open, 
scriptural  method,  to  try  to  cover  over  the  whole  matter,  and  even 
bring  the  great  influence  of  the  Rooms  to  breakdown  the  character 
of  those  who  know  and  stale  the  facts  of  the  case  ?  Dr.  Anderson 
was  present  at  the  conferences  that  originated  the  mission  church,* 
and  I  doubt  not  it  was  mainly  tlirough  his  influence  that  the  sapping 
and  mining  plan  went  into  operation.  Is  it  honest  then  for  him  to 
make  statements  whicii  imply  a  denial,  and  by  his  refusal  to  cor- 
rect W.  W.'s  statement,  give  his  influence  on  the  side  of  the  denial 
of  the  whole  ? 

Is  it  to  be  tolerated,  that  persons  thus  assailed  for  stating  only  the 
truth,  should  be  refused  documents,  and  otlier  information  at  the 
Rooms,  which  they  know  are  there,  and  will  prove  more  than  they 
have  said  ? 

Does  it  become  the  character  of  a  missionary  supported  by  the 
church,  to  refuse  information  respecting  a  policy  which  he  had  fol- 
lowed for  years  and  often  advocated,  and  thus  by  his  refusal  per- 
mit falsehood  to  prevail,  and  the  character  of  one  wlio  had  told  the 
trutli  sufler;  and  all  to  cover  over  a  policy  formerly  advocated, 
but  now  denied  ? 

Is  it  allowable  fop  missionaries  to  be  encouraged,  or  tolerated,  in 
privately  sending  home  charges  against  others,  or  statements  which 
affect  them — cause  them,  it  may  be,  to  be  recalled,  while  tiic  per- 
son thus  treated  has  no  knowledge  of  the  case,  and  no  opportunity 
of  defending  himself  or  his  opinions,  however  misrepresented  he 
may  be,  or  directly  slandered  ?  Not  to  dwell  on  my  own  case, 
take  that  of  Rev.  J.  L.  Merrick.  And  further,  has  no  one  observed 
the  curious  silence  of  the  Herald  on  the  whole  matter,  of  the  re- 
turn of  the  four  young  brethren,  wlio  succeeded  me  in  the  Syrian 
Mission?  Would  they  all  say  that  no  private  communications 
were  connected  with  their  return  in  good  health  witii  their  fami- 
lies to  the  United  States  ? 

Are  we  to  have  a  revival  of  the  doctrine  that  pious  frauds  are 
allowable — that  we  may  deceive  people  for  their  good,  or  the  sup- 
posed good  of  the  cliurcli — or  to  conceal  faults  and  blunders? 
The  Scripture  plan  is  to  record  the  truth,  even  as  to  the  faults  of 
God's  people,  and  dra\y  lessons  of  instruction  from  them.  1  Cor.  x  : 
1 — 15.  AH  the  apostacies  and  great  errors  of  Israel  are  made 
matter  of  record,  and  used  as  warnings  to  others.  Our  Lord  did 
not  cover  up  the  faults  of  his  disciples,  nor  did  they  the  errors  of 
each  other.  When  Peter  acted  with  duplicity,  Paul  "  wiilistood 
him  to  the  face,  because  ho  was  to  be  blamed."  But  it  would  seem 
that  the  mistake  of  the  "  sapping  and  mining"  policy,  the  Jesuiti- 
cal principles  then  acted  on,  must  now  be  covered  over  and  denied  ; 
and  combined  efforts  made  to  deceive  the  churches,  and  destroy 
the  character  of  those  who  stated  the  truth.  Pretences  are  made 
that  documents  known  to  have  been  sent  to  the  Rooms,  and  parts  of 
which  have  been  published,  are  now  lost,  or  their  place  is  not  known. 

*See  Observations  on  the  Peloponnesus,  by  A.  Anderson,  page  25  and  7. 


4 


36 


Possibly  they  are  lost — possibly  destroyed.  For  I  hold  that  per- 
sons who  would  withhold  information,  and  shuffle  and  deny,  as 
tlie  Secretaries  have  done,  might  be  expected  to  put  away,  or  de- 
stroy documents,  which,  if  seen,  would  detect  and  expose  their 
course. 

The  Jesuits  have  secret  depositories,  known  only  to  the  initiated, 
for  papers  which  they  use  when  needed  to  effect  their  purposes; 
but  to  which  none  may  have  access  but  themselves.  The  churches 
which  support  the  missions  have  a  right  to  good  assurance  that  the 
records  of  the  mission  work  are  well  kept,  and  rightly  kept — that 
the  truth  of  history  is  not  falsified — that  a  false  account  of  policy 
and  of  persons  is  not  palmed  on  the  churches — that  defamatory 
charges  are  not  made  and  privately  deposited  at  the  Rooms,  of 
which  the  person  injured  may  have  no  knowledge,  and  thus  have 
no  means  of  refuting.  When  the  parlies  are  dead,  these  may  be 
found  and  used  to  the  great  injury  of  individuals,  and  vexation  of 
their  friends.* 

What  evidence  have  we  that  the  truth  has  been  duly  regarded 
up  to  the  present  time,  either  in  the  general  statements  made  at 
the  Rooms,  the  documents  published,  or  those  preserved  or  de- 
stroyed ?  I  know  of  no  security  but  the  supposition  that  the  Sec- 
retaries are  true  and  faithful  to  their  trust.  Now  do  they  act  on 
oath  ?  Are  their  doings  reviewed  ?  Are  all  their  official  acts  in- 
vestigated by  competent  persons  ?  The  above  denials  and  refusals 
to  give  information,  the  alledged  ignorance  about  documents,  parts 
of  which  have  been  published,  all  look  the  other  way. 

What  evidence  have  we  that  the  Prudential  Committee  really 
look  into,  and  decide  those  cases,  which  are  supposed-to  be  decided 
by  them  ?  Do  they  ketsp  a  record  of  their  meetings  ?  of  the  mem- 
bers present  ?  of  the  business  brought  forward  ?  of  those  who  voted 
for  and  against  ?  and  the  reasons  for  their  decision  ?  Is  the  mat- 
ter so  managed,  and  the  records  so  kept,  as  to  prevent  a  full  and 
fair  liistory  of  the  case,  which  may  be  reviewed  and  appealed  to, 
as  an  autlientic  document  ?  This  is  tlie  way  matters  are  managed 
in  most  other  bodies,  which  act  as  agents;  and  all  agents  ought 
thus  to  act,  and  be  able  at  all  times  to  show  clean  hands. 

Is  it  the  Committee  that  are  not  willing  to  meet  the  rcsponsibil- 
ity  of  letting  their  names  be  known,  or  is  it  the  Secretaries  who 
do  it  for  iliem,  and  possibly  without  their  knowledge  ?  ^Ve  have 
high  ajuthority  for  saying,  "  that  every  one  that  docth  trutli  cometh 
to  the  liglit,"  but  that  tiiose  "  who  love  darkness"  belong  to  another 
class. 

That  the  Secretaries  should  strive  to  retain  their  places,  and  sal- 
aries, and  irresponsible  power,  we  can  readily  supjiose.  When  did 
imperfect  human  nature,  of  its  own  accord,  give  up  place  and 
power  and  wealth  ?  The  recall  of  Bradley  and  Caswell  for  claim- 
ing to  be  more  perfect  than  the  executive  can  allow  its  missiona- 
ries to  be,  is  sufficient  proof  tiiat  the  Secretaries  lay  no  claitn  to 
perfection  themselves.  All  may  be  expected  to  hold  on  to  their 
places,  and  salaries,  and  power,  as  long  as  the  churclies  can  be 
made  to  bear  it. 


•See  Appt-ndix.    Notes  A  and  B. 


37 


Nor  do  we  doubt  but  there  will  be  some  to  advocate  their  cause. 
This  has  seldom,  if  ever,  been  lacking  to  those  who  exercised  ar- 
bitrary and  irresponsible  power.  Luther  said  "  every  man  had  a 
Pope  in  him the  Pope  always  has  had  friends,  and  his  Popeship 
in  the  agency  may  be  expected  to  have  some. 

But  how  the  American  Board,  and  ihose  who  have  at  heart  the 
cause  of  pure  religion,  of  civil  and  religious  rights — those  who 
know  how  place  and  power  arc  sure  to  efTect  human  nature — those 
who  are  not  ignorant  of  the  notorious  fact  that  associations  of  men, 
and  even  of  good  men,  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  a  conscience  ; 
and  will  often  do,  or  suffer  to  be  done  by  those  who  love  to  have 
the  pre-eminence,  what  they,  in  their  individual  capacity,  would 
scorn  to  do  ; — how  those  who  desire  the  mission  cause  to  advance, 
and  pray  for  God's  blessing  on  it,  should  be  willing  to  let  matters 
go  on  as  they  have  done,  we  do  not  know.  We  close  with  assent- 
ing to  the  opinion,  which  we  have  heard  expressed  by  persons  who 
have  proved  their  attachment  to  the  Board,  that  unless  the  evils  of 
the  present  mode  of  management  are  corrected,  the  Board  must, 
before  long,  meet  a  great  reversion,  and  the  cause  of  missions  re- 
ceive a  great  injury. 


APPENDIX. 

Note  A.  While  I  designed  to  be  plain  and  frank  in  my  letters, 
I  designed  to  be  kind  and  respectful  ;  and  that  I  was,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  testimony  of  the  brethren  to  whom  I  wrote.  Mr. 
Dwight  says,  "  your  letter  is  now  before  me.  It  seems  to  have 
been  written  in  a  good  spirit,  and  I  hope  has  been  received  in  a 
good  spirit.  It  is  a  frank  and  brotherly  expression  of  opinion,  and 
as  such  I  receive  it,  and  thank  you  for  it  ;  and  although  even  in 
the  main  points  of  your  letter,  I  cannot  agree  with  you,  yet  I  hope 
it  will  do  good,  both  to  me  and  to  my  fellow-laborers,  who  have 
read  it."  Mr.  Temple  said,  "  It  was  frank,  kind,  and  Christian,  in 
its  spirit,  and  he  trusted  would  do  them  all  good,  though  he  dis- 
sented from  some  of  its  practical  views."  All  of  these  brethren, 
in  arguing  against  my  views,  do  me  a  manifest  injustice.  They 
represent  me  as  in  favor  of  doing  almost  nothing  but  attacking  the 
errors  and  superstitions  of  those  churches,  and  that  in  a  violent  way. 
The  following  passages  show  this,  while  they  also  show  their  plan. 

Dwight  says,  "  You  would  have  us  come  out  openly,  and  boldly 
and  directly  attack  the  errors  of  those  eastern  churches  ;  such  as 
praying  to  the  Virgin  and  saints,  the  worship  of  pictures,  confes- 
sion to  a  priest,  fasting,  as  they  practice  it,  &c.  ;  and  because  we 
do  not  do  this,  you  charge  on  us  a  radical  defect  in  our  system  of 
measures,"  "  I  beg  you  will  fix  your  mind  on  this  one  point  :  the 
dilference  betwcefi  preaching  the  gospel,  that  is,  all  that- pertains 
to  man's  lost  estate  by  nature,  and  salvation  through  a  crucified 
Savior  alone,  and  preaching  directly  against  forms  and  ceremonies, 
and  errors  and  superstitions.  If  you  revolve  this  in  your  mind  a 
little,  I  think  you  may  be  relieved  of  some  of  your  difficulties." 


38 


Adger  thus  states  his  plan  :  "  I  would  specify  the  perpetual  vir- 
ginity and  worship  of  the  Virgin,  intercession  of  saints  and  angels, 
purgatory,  confession,  &c.  id  omne  genus.  In  my  opinion,  we 
should  be  leaving  our  ministry  to  serve  tables,  or  doing  worse,  if 
we  should  give  our  time  to  sucii  matters.  These  miserable  super- 
stitions, and  all  others  of  this  class,  would  be  better  left  aside, 
while  we  march  up  to  tiie  citadel  of  the  people's  hearts  and  use 
against  it  the  law  and  the  gospel,  telling  them  with  all  plainness  of 
their  personal  sins,  and  pointing  them  to  Christ  as  their  personal 
Savior.  Let  us  but  get  a  lodgment  for  him  in  their  hearts,  and 
those  other  objects  will  relax  their  hold  immediately  and  forever." 
Extracts  need  not  be  multiplied  ;  it  is  sufficient  to  give  a  few  of  the 
expressions  which  were  used  to  represent  my  views,  and  which  do 
me  great  injustice.  No  such  expressions  can  be  found  in  my  let- 
ters. "  A  denunciatory  plan,"  "  assaulting,"  "  attacking,"  "  the 
knock  down  and  drag  out  system,"  "a  warlike  spirit,"  "a  fiery 
spirit,"  "battering  rams,"  "thunder  and  lightning,"  &c.  The 
expressions  were  used  in  letters  to  me  and  to  Mr,  Thomson,  and  in 
letters  sent  to  the  Rooms,  provided  those  were  true  copies  of  those 
sent  us.  And  to  some  such  unfounded  charges  W.  W.  may  refer, 
and  hold  up  in  lerrorcrn. 

The  Committee,  as  may  bo  seen,  April  Herald,  1838,  adopted 
the  plan  of  conceding  that  but  one  of  two  plans  can  be  followed. 
"  The  one  is  to  expose  and  assault  the  errors  and  superstitious  rites 
of  the  people,  and  attempt  to  compel  them  by  argument  to  abandon 
their  false  refuges  a'nd  embrace  the  truth  ;  the  other  is,  to  hold  up 
clearly  before  their  minds  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  Bible, 
in  their  spiritual  meaning  and  application,  and  press  on  their  at- 
tention the  importance  of  .holiness  of  heart  and  life,  but  without 
making  any  direct  attack  on  their  present  system  of  belief  in  their 
ceremonial  observances,  supposing  that  wlien  the  leading  truths 
of  the  gospel  shall  be  understood  and  received  by  them,  their  er- 
rors and  heartless  formalities  will  soon  be  removed." — Page  117. 
Now  we  never  advocated  either  of  these  modes,  in  the  exclusive 
way  in  which  they  are  here  stated.  Our  position  always  was  that, 
together  with  the  clear  setting  forth  of  law  and  gospel  truth,  well 
confirmed  with  scripture  quotations,  there  ought  to  be  a  clear  point- 
ing out  of  those  errors  and  superstitions  which  obscured,  perverted 
and  neutralized  it.  We  advocated  the  same  plan  which  Mr.  Smith 
in  his  late  numbers  affirms  "has  always  been  followed."  In  a 
note,  which  follows  it  will  be  seen  that  he  was  grieved  almost  to 
death,  in  1837,  at  the  apprehension  that  the  sapping  and  mining 
policy  was,  through  my  influence,  changed  for  the  open  and  ag- 
gressive plan. 

Note  li.  "  You  speak  of  a  responsibility  resting  upon  the  elder 
brethren,  who  have  taken  the  load  in  this  course,  which  you  con- 
demn; and  is  there  no  responsibility  connected  with  taking  the 
lead  in  such  a  course  as  you  recommend — a  course  which  almost 
all  of  the  elder  brethren  here  have  tried  and  abandoned — a  system 
which,  if  adopted  at  Beirut,  threatens  to  change  the  propects  of  that 
lovely  mission,  just  now  organized  into  a  system  of  thoroughly 


39 


evangelical  operations,  promising,  if  carried  on  perspveringly,  to 
do  so  much  good ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  harmony  which  has  hith- 
erto characterized  it  in  so  marked  a  manner  ?  My  feelings  on  this 
subject  are  stronger  than  I  can  express.  To  return  to  Beirut  and 
feel  there  the  vacancy  God  has  already  made,  is  what  I  can 
scarcely  bear;  but  to  return  there  and  find  besides  this,  those  ope- 
rations, the  organization  of  which  had  occasioned  many  delightful 
hopes,  condemned  and  endangered  before  time  has  been  allowed  at 
all,  sufficient  to  see  their  results,  it  seems  to  take  away  almost  all 
the  remainder  of  my  desire  to  live.  For  I  have  not  the  least  idea 
that  at  Beirut  the  change  is  called  for,  nor  have  I  any  doubts  as  to 
its  general  results." — Extract  of  his  letter  to  me,  1837,  which  was 
sent  to  the  Rooms,  and  that  fact  concealed  from  me  until  I  reached 
the  U.  S. 

All  must  see  that  this  expresses  dissatisfaction  with  me,  and  im- 
plies the  charge  of  causing  dissentions,  and  greatly  mjuring  the 
prospects  of  the  mission.  There  was  no  truth  in  his  charges. 
There  were  no  dissentions,  that  I  know  of,  before  he  came.  All 
that  I  had  done  was,  to  answer  Dwight's  written  request  to  give 
him  my  views  of  mission  policy.  In  illustrating  the  matter  I  spe- 
cified several  things  which  I  had  learned  at  Beirut,  and  nearly,  if 
not  exactly,  in  the  language  in  which  I  had  learned  them.  Mr. 
Thomson  assured  me  that  Mr.  Smith  admitted  that  he  had  labored 
under  a  mistake  as  to  the  changes  which  he  thought  had  been  made 
and  which  he  charged  on  me. 

On  seeing  the  extracts  from  the  letter  which  contained  those 
charges,  1  wished  to  know  whether,  as  common  justice  and  honesty 
required,  he  had  corrected  the  false  impression  made  at  the  Rooms 
by  his  letter.  I  was  informed  that  no  correction  had  come.  There 
was  time  after  he  reached  Beirut,  and  found  that  his  charges  were 
false,  and  knew  of  my  offer  of  service,  to  have  corrected  it,  before 
my  offnT  was  answered.    Tiiis  he  did  not  do. 

Note  C.  We  think  the  history  of  the  missions  to  the  Oriental 
Churches  will  present  many  points  to  show  tiiat  it  would  have  been 
well  not  to  have  committed  the  mission  work  wholly  to  younji  men, 
but  to  have  sent  some  men  of  more  age  and  experience.  Most  of 
the  young  men  have  gone  into  plans  of  expediency — have  tried  ex- 
periments— many  of  them  have  made  "  somersets"  into  llie  sap- 
ping and  mining  plan,  and  back  again,  which  men  of  more  age 
would  hardly  have  done. 

We  do  not  believe  many  old  men  would  have  expended  as  much 
in  publisliing  school  books,  while  there  was  such  a  reading  popuia. 
tion,  who  had  no  book  containing  a  clear  exposition  of  gospel  truth, 
contrasted  with  the  errors  of  those  churches.  We  much  doubt 
whether  men  of  age  and  experience  would  have  gone  in  for  a  new 
Arabic  type.  The  old  English  Arabic  type  was  declared  by  Tem- 
ple in  182.5,  (Herald,  page  271,)  to  be  "of  rare  and  peculiar  ex- 
cellence." The  set  procured  proved  to  be  not  entirely  complete, 
but  its  defects  might  have  been  supplied  at  a  small  cost,  compared 
with  that  of  the  new  type,  which  Messrs.  Smith  and  Hallooll  spent 
several  years  in  getting  up.    I  have  not  beca  able  to  ascertaia  at 


40 


what  cost,  and  I  doubt  whether  any  one  knows,  but  the  officers  at 
the  Rooms,  and  possibly  Mr.  Smith.  I  should  not  be  surprised  if 
its  vvliole  cost,  counting  in  the  salaries  of  Smith  and  Hallock, 
amounted  to  810,000,  and  I  much  question  if,  for  general  use,  it 
is  as  good  as  the  old  ;  and  if  I  am  rightly  informed,  its  wear  and 
tear,  and  the  expense  tlirough  breakage,  is  much  greater.  I  have 
have  not  found  any  wlio  could  tell  the  cost,  and  felt  sure  I  could 
not  get  the  information  at  the  Rooms,  where  I  have  ever  been  refu- 
sed  information,  in  which  I  was  specially  interested. 

Nor  do  I  think  old  men  would  have  employed  so  much  time  and 
money  to  publish  an  Arabic  grammar,  when  there  were  so  many 
grammars  and  so  few  to  use  them.  The  whole  plan  of  throwing 
all  on  young  men,  is  like  that  which  some  would  adopt  in  our  col- 
leges and  theological  seminaries — place  tlie  sons  before  the  fathers. 
The  Bible  plan  was  to  give  the  rule  and  direction  of  things  to  the 
elders,  but  the  wisdom  of  the  nineteenth  century  is,  in  many  things, 
correcting  the  errors  of  the  past;  and  the  Bible,  and  its  old-fash- 
ioned doctrines  and  practices,  have  come  in  for  their  share  of  im- 
provement. 

There  are  many  things  which  show  that  the  character  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M. 
must  be  Sfriously  affected  hy  the  attempts  m.Tcle  lo  cover  over  or  deny  the  policy 
which  w;is  so  generally  followed  in  the  missions  to  the  Oriental  churches. 

We  will  refi  r  lo  one  While  to  the  great  mass  of  our  Christian  people,  little  is 
known  of  that  policy,  it  was  known  and  is  remembered  by  many  in  those  regions 
where  those  missions  were  located.  A  good  many  travelers,  traders  and  official 
men  as  consuls  and  consular  agents  have  so  observed  the  plan  as  to  know  what  it 
was.  These  station.^  have  been  visited  by  our  naval  vess  -ls,  and  an  interest  man- 
ifested in  the  missionaries  and  their  work.  Inquiries  have  been  made  and  infor- 
mation obtained  as  to  the  mode  of  operating.  The  American  Mediterranean 
squadron  came  to  Beirut  under  the  command  of  Com.  Elliot,  just  after  a  wide 
spread  attempt  was  made  in  Greece,  Turkey  and  Syria,  to  put  down  the  mission 
schools,  under  the  belief  that  through  the  schools,  the  missionaries  were  attempting 
to  effect  changes  in  the  religion  professed  in  those  regions.  The  Commodore  had 
been  at  Malta,  Corfu,  Athens,  Smyrna  and  (Constantinople.  A  violent  opposition 
had  shown  itself  against  the  mi-sion  schools  at  all  these  places  which  he  had  lately 
visited.  The  bishop  had  issued  circulars  against  them;  an  ecclesiastical  commit- 
tee had  opened  a  correspondence  with  the  missionaries  at  Smyrna,  and  put  the 
question  dii  ectly  to  them,  whether,  under  the  pretence  of  conducting  schools,  they 
inteiiiled  to  change  their  religion.  The  missionaries  had  answered  them  in  an 
English  i)amphlet,  of  above  40  pages,  embracing  the  correspondence,  and  deny 
that  they  intend  to  make  proselytes  or  induce  persons  to  leave  the  Greek  church. 
Any  one,  who  will  read  the  pamphlet,  may  see  that  the  information  really  sought 
is  not  given.  Whether  the  Commodore  had  seen  this  pamphlet  or  not,  I  do  not 
know  ;  but  he  put  this  question  to  ine  while  dining  with  him  on  ship-board: 

The  missionaries  do  not  mean  or  wish  to  change  the  religion  of  these  people,  do 
they  !  They  only  mean  to  promote  education  and  improvements  f  That,  was 
evidently  his  idea  ol  their  object.  I  replied,  that  we  certainly  wished  to  promote 
education  and  improvements,  but  that  was  not  our  great  object.  That  was  lo  bring 
back  those  Christians  from  the  deep  corruptions  into  which  they  had  fallen.  That 
Christiiinity  as  professed  and  held  by  them  was  another  gospel,  and  one  that  would 
not  save  ;  that  the  great  missionary  object  was  to  revive  spiriluni  reliuion  and  re- 
cover those  churches  from  those  errors  and  gross  superstitions  which  had  taken  its 
place.  I  do  not  pretend  to  give  the  jjiecise  words,  but  the  substance  of  our  con- 
versation on  this  point.  Names  of  i)ers.)ns  of  piety  and  intelligence  might  be  added, 
who  cannot  be  Bupi)o8ed  to  have  lieen  idle  spectators  of  missionary  proceedings. 
Now  what  will  such  persons  think  of  ciroris  now  made  to  make  it  out,  as  W.  W. 
and  E.  Smith  have  done,  that  the  open,  aggressive  plan  has  always  been  followed', 
in  the  face  rf  what  some  of  them  have  witnessed  for  years .' 


